Comprehensive Sex Ed: Teaching the Teachers
September 16, 2010 - 7:00am (Print)
On September 15th, the CDC released a new report on the share of teens in the United States that were taught about birth control. This report shows that one-third of teens were never taught about birth control in their health classes. This is crazy; some schools are still not teaching about birth control, though the public overwhelmingly agrees that it needs to be taught. One poll even showed that 85 percent of parents believe that teens need to be taught about birth control. The other two-third of teens, which are taught about birth control, may not know enough about how to use it. Birth control methods seem to be the most taboo topic in the sex-ed world.
To try and figure out why this is, and learn more about teachers opinions on sex-ed, I sat down with my old health teacher, just hours after this study was released. After our conversation I began thinking, and I realized it’s not that educators are against birth control, it’s that they’re afraid of it.
I attended Mr. Hanson’s (not his real name) class every day first period for twenty weeks last year. Mr. Hanson describes the curriculum he teaches as “fairly comprehensive,” though from my own personal experience I know the main focus is on abstinence. When I asked him about this, Hanson explains that he tries to “inform students that sex can be great, at the right time, with the right person” and that he can’t decide when the right time is for his students to have sex. He also tries to instill in his student’s minds that “if sex is to occur, a condom must be worn.” As a result, he does talk about birth control, though usually in the context that the Pill does not prevent sexually transmitted infections or disease. Even so, his students are already part of that two-third that learned about birth control. Just because students know what birth control is--that it exists--doesn’t mean that they know how to properly use it or how to get it. Many girls won’t talk to a parent about getting birth control because they think that their parents will be displeased that they are having sex. Students are sometimes afraid to buy condoms because of fear someone may see them, among other concerns. Though these are not reasons why someone should ever have unprotected sex, these taboos are a reality in today’s society. Hanson believes that may not be a bad thing. He says that students that do have sex need to be responsible, and if they are unable or unwilling to secure birth control for themselves or their partner, they may not be ready to have sex. If only that was the situation, life would be simpler. Sadly many teens don’t see it that way. Teens are still having unprotected sex, even with knowledge of birth control options. And what does that mean for that one-third of teens that aren’t educated about birth control…?
So why are there still programs that don’t teach about birth control? Why are there also programs that teach what birth control is, but not how to use it? The United States has the highest rate of teenage mothers in the entire developed world, and parents overwhelmingly support their kids learning about birth control, yet it’s still not taught. As I said before, educators seem to be afraid of teaching about birth control. This fear is why teachers and school administrators won’t stand up and take the first step to move to a comprehensive sex-ed program in their school district; they don’t want to get blamed for increasing the pregnancy or STI rate. People are afraid that telling teen about safe sex and birth control, will lead teens to have sex earlier. In reality it’s the exact opposite. In fact sex-ed programs, which include information on birth control, are proven to delay teen sex, decrease the number of sexual partners teens have, decrease pregnancy rates, and increase birth control usage.
For many years politicians have thrown around the word “education” as the answer to lowering teen pregnancy and infection rates. We need to educate high school students on the issue they say, but instead maybe we need to educate these teachers that still aren’t teaching information about birth control in their classrooms. If we continue just educating the students, and not the teachers, the fear of teaching sex-ed will continue to exist. Until we can overcome that fear the United States’ pregnancy and STD/STI rate will continue to be one of the highest in the developed world, and one in three teens will still not be taught about birth control.
Many girls won’t talk to a parent about getting birth control because they think that their parents will be displeased that they are having sex.
No sh*t. Really?
Are we talking about women that are under 18, Max?
Yes, the issue around this is that schools are hoping that girls are talking to their parents about birth control, so that the school doesn't have to educate them about it.
Think back to when you were in high school, arex. I'm sure you wouldn't have been too psyched to talk to your parents about sex and birth control. Schools are hoping that parents are going to step up and talk to their teens. When they don't, teens are left with no information about birth control at all. In high school, when some people are having sex and others are thinking about having it, this information is vital. At the time when they really need birth control, when they are having sex, many teens (of both genders) won't ask their parents because they are unsure how their parents will feel about them having sex. This whole situation could be avoided, or at least made less prevalent, if every school taught comprehensive sex-ed that included birth control.
Hope that clarifies it for you!
-Max Kamin-Cross
Actually, Max, I had parents that did teach me about birth control and contraception. I had a health class teacher (public schooling, mind you) who taught me that abstinence was the only truly safe way to approach pre-marital intercourse. Go figure.
Of course, our town has about a 0% rate of teen pregnancy. Must be the horrible education we're getting at the schools.
The pamphlets are available in the school lobby. I fail to see at what point it became the responsibility of the school system to teach high school students how to properly use a condom. I know YOU think that it should be taught, but what do you say to the millions of parents who actually talk to their children about sex and would prefer that their tax dollars go to something like... i dunno... math class?
And Max, if women under the legal age are having sex where you live, but have problems talking to their parents about serious subjects like sex, your biggest problem is not proper BC usage. These girls have MUCH bigger problems and they need help. Real help. Not the pill.
That's great, arex! Unfortunately, not all parents do talk to their kids about sex. I learned abstinence-only through the Catholic Church, nothing from my parents, and nothing from school. Guess where I learned?
I wonder how many pregnancies occurred, gasp, unbeknownst to you, and ended in abortion?
And HELL YES it is a good idea to teach a teen how to properly put on a condom. HELL YES it's a good idea for the schools to provide information on contraception. You can shame all you want, but high school is when most teens start having sex, and if they don't get the information from trusted professionals, and they aren't getting it at home (which of COURSE they should), then they are learning through experience, which is good in other circumstances but not in sexual circumstances. I want MY tax dollars going to that. I DON'T want my tax dollars going to support new uniforms and buses for the football team. Could you get on that, please?
You can shame all you want, but high school is when most teens start having sex
"1. Most teenagers have had sexual intercourse by the time they finish high school.
FICTION Recent research indicates that only 30 percent (about one-third) of all girls and 50 percent (about one-half) of all boys have had sexual intercourse by age 17. The figures are even lower for teens under age 15. It is important to recognize that many older teens and most young teens choose not to have intercourse."
Psssssst: Intercourse isn't the only kind of sex out there, nor the only kind which carries physical and emotional risks.
That said, the median age of first intercourse is in the teens, usually around 16 and change for men and 17-ish for women, including here in the states.
When did I shame?
I wonder how many pregnancies occurred, gasp, unbeknownst to you, and ended in abortion?
My county has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country too, so I suppose not many?
Your logic fail is essentially that you're assuming you're right or just as bad, assuming everyone agrees with you. If you want something taught in schools - news flash - it shouldn't be something that a strong percentage of the population seriously oppose. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say that 80% of the population is fine with contraception being instructed and provided to their children without their consent or supervision or even awareness. Do the other 20% of parents have any right at all?
What if most people agreed with me instead? What if 80% of the population had serious moral objection to contraception being taught. Wouldn't it upset YOU if every state mandated abstinence education?
Your position is one of either two things. 1. That all children should be taught what the majority believe is appropriate. I disagree - I believe in the freedom of parents to direct their children's upbringing.
2. You believe that it should be universally taught because it's necessary. Here's more news for you. It's not. Your idea of sex education is not necessary education. Myself and millions of others are proof of that.
<<<I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say that 80% of the population is fine with contraception being instructed and provided to their children without their consent or supervision or even awareness. Do the other 20% of parents have any right at all?>>>
Yes. It's called "opting out." You'd be hard-pressed to find a public school that doesn't allow parents to opt their kids out of sex ed, whether the school teaches ab-only or comprehensive, medically accurate curricula.
As for sex ed not being "necessary," most teens today would disagree with you. They want the information. And if they don't, they can tell their parents they want to opt out.
I was attempting to google and find my town's teen pregnancy rate and I can't find it - how do you know yours?
http://www.massteenpregnancy.org/research/teen-pregnancy-and-birth-rates
When it comes to international comparisons, interesting it says:
There are a variety of complex explanations for these striking differences. In particular, it seems that adults and policymakers in these countries provide a level of respect to teenagers not seen in the United States, resulting in increased openness about sexuality and sexual decision-making. As a result, many European teens have easy access to sexual health information and services to help them make healthy decisions.
Obviously we're talking about girls under 18; we're talking about high school.
I think educators and politicians a like are doing an incredible disservice to todays teens by keeping them in the dark about sexuality and birth control options.
We're so afraid of teens having sex. As though "allowing" it would be a moral failing. But the truth is, teens are going to have sex, whether society is cool with it or not. And it's not because of "hook up culture" or Miley Cyrus and her provocitive dancing, or even bad parenting. It's because becoming a sexual person is, for many people, part of growing up. A right of passage. People will become sexual when they feel it's right for themselves- and for many that might be in high school. So what?
It's not about encouraging or discouraging sex. I think adults have a responsibility to the next generation to share their knowledge and lived experience to guide and help them make healthy decisions. It's common sense- give real un-biased, scientific information about disease prevention, how birth control works, even abortion- and the teens who are sexually active will use that information. The teens who aren't will tuck it away and use it when they need it. Telling a girl how a condom is put on won't make her have sex that night- but it might make her use one when she does.
Right on. A sex ed teacher needs to be able to discuss these issues openly and honestly, so that students will feel comfortable asking questions. What if it wasn't teachers, though? Maybe a health professional and/or counselor type person who could lay it out honestly and also be prepared to answer questions. I think when a physical education teacher teaches sex ed, for example, the students are more uncomfortable with her/him than they would be with a health educator who is a stranger.
And yes, arex, girls under 18 do engage in sex sometimes. They should be educated about it.
What if it wasn't teachers, though? Maybe a health professional and/or counselor type person who could lay it out honestly and also be prepared to answer questions.
My school system did exactly that. Although some of the information was part of the core health curriculum, we also had instances when the local public health nurse would come in and give a more focussed session. (Hell, one time we were even asked to put questions in a box, so they'd be anonymous).
Its all very well having sex ed in the schools and great that it is being taught, but surely it is up to the parents too to educate the children too. Who would a teenager prefer to learn from?
Would they ask those real personal or silly questions in an open forum like a classroom or prefer to ask them in the privacy of their own home?
Parent should also be involved in the subject of sex ed, what about classes for them too.
There definitely should be classes for parents about ways to teach their kids sex. Unfortunately, even with the right tools many parents are unwilling or unable to talk to their kids about these things. All teens deserve accurate information so they can make the best decisions for themselves, regardless of how their parents are.
If children want to ask their parents, they will. Not only should we trust women, but teenagers, as well. However, that is certainly an excellent idea... about teaching sex ed to parents.
Do these "comprehensive" programs teach that even if you use a contraceptive that you should be prepared to handle a pregnancy or an STD if you have sex?
It's also not sound to think that even when you ARE doing all of safer sex, even to the letter, that you have NO risk: rather, what you have when practicing safer sex is a highly reduced level of risk. That's why what used to be called "safe sex" in the 80's got changed to "safer sex" in the 90's. As I'm sure you know, the only 100% safe sex when it comes to sexually transmitted infections is NO kind of sex at all where there is any possibility of body fluids being exchanged, which means no direct oral or genital contact.
and
Lastly, sometimes we hear from users who tell us that they absolutely, positively want to take NO risks of acquiring a sexually transmitted infection. Safer sex isn't 100% protection: again, it's safer, not safe. If you're someone who wants to take absolutely no risks, then your only right answer is not to have any kind of sex beyond outercourse: to avoid any kinds of intimate contact where body fluids of any kind are exchanged (kissing is okay, but that does pose an oral herpes risk), and where there is ANY genital contact. You also will need to avoid intravenous drug use and any kind of exposure to other people's blood or body fluids in non-sexual situations, in case those things aren't obvious.
From the fabulous sex ed website/book Scarleteen by RHRealityCheck contributor Heather Corinna.
As you can see, this comprehensive information spells out quite clearly that the only 100% surefire way to avoid pregnancy and STIs is not having any intimate contact involving exchange of body fluids.
Absolutely, Kevin. Pregnancy and STI prevention is part of the contraception discussion. What teens don't need more of is shaming, though. No one learns through shaming.
What teens don't need more of is shaming
True. I don't know if I can say the same for those who promote "comprehensive" sex ed, though.
Based on what you're all claiming here, there is little difference between a "comprehensive" sex ed program and an abstinence-only program. So why knock abstinence programs?
what? There's a huge difference, which I think is pretty obvious, but sure, I'll spell it out.
Comprehensive sex ed teaches about the emotional aspects of sexuality. It teaches about STIs and pregnancy, how they happen and how to avoid them. It teaches about contraception, but warns abstinence (used correctly, like all birth control), is the best way to remain pregnancy and STI-free. It does not assume kids already know what sex is. It breaks down all the myths flying around about positions, menstruation, etc. It's education. About all aspects of sex, not just abstinence. Abstinence-only often works by shaming on religious grounds. It doesn't include birth control or STI prevention. Do abstinence-only promoters think knowledge makes one less intelligent and able to make their own decisions? That just because kids know that condoms exist, there's nothing standing between them and having a great sex life? That's why the psychological aspects of sex ed are important, too.
Comprehensive sex ed teaches about the emotional aspects of sexuality.
So does this abstinence program: http://www.choosingthebest.org/advocacy_toolkit/index.html
Abstinence-only often works by shaming on religious grounds.
Not the one linked to above.
It doesn't include birth control or STI prevention.
It includes factual information on these, but doesn't pretend that having sex with a condom is the equal of abstinence.
the psychological aspects of sex ed are important, too.
No doubt. So are the psychological aspects of education. In fact, kids have a natural drive to find the "correct" answer. The problem with "comprehensive" sex ed is that it presents two "correct" answers that are obviously quite different and in many ways are diametrically opposed to each other.
It includes factual information on these, but doesn't pretend that having sex with a condom is the equal of abstinence.
So, how is it ab-only then? And comprehensive programs DO give failure rates of the various types of BC they teach about. Trust me, I was never under the illusion that any BC was 100% effective.
The problem with "comprehensive" sex ed is that it presents two "correct" answers that are obviously quite different and in many ways are diametrically opposed to each other.
How's that a problem? This isn't math, it's life, and not everyone is going to come up with the same answer. And by suggesting that there is only one 'correct' answer, then that will create shame in students who choose to go a different route.
You might as well say that philosophy is worthless because it tends to provide competing 'correct' answers.
How's that a problem? This isn't math, it's life, and not everyone is going to come up with the same answer.
It's not exactly math, but clearly there's math involved. It's not exactly science, but clearly that's involved as well. What is for sure is that it's not art or writing, where what you do is completely creative and the results have no impact on your personal life (even if no one sees them).
No, not everyone will come up with the same answer. But what's most bizarre about "comprehensive" programs is whether and when they might consider some answers a mistake. The implication is that if you have sex without proper "protection" and contract an STD or get pregnant, you have made a mistake. However, if you do take all the proper precautions and still get pregnant or contract an STD, then... ???? ... these programs just don't go there. (So much for being "comprehensive.")
And by suggesting that there is only one 'correct' answer, then that will create shame in students who choose to go a different route.
"Comprehensive" programs create shame, but it's quite the opposite of the way you think abstinence-only programs do. For example, Advocates for Youth's LPE program presents the following as "Myths about abstinence": 'Causes "blue balls" in males; a female who abstains is sexually repressed; abstinent teens will be unpopular; "nobody" practices abstinence.' No similar set of "myths" is offered about those who choose not to be abstinent, however. By mentioning such things, it sets up the expectation they are popular perceptions about abstinence, when in fact they may not be (and I say in most cases definitely aren't). In other words, it says, "You shouldn't be ashamed about choosing abstinence" in a way that sets one up to feel shameful about choosing abstinence.
You might as well say that philosophy is worthless because it tends to provide competing 'correct' answers.
There may be a philosophical component to the contracting of herpes, but I would suggest that it's tremendously outweighed by the physical.
No, not everyone will come up with the same answer. But what's most bizarre about "comprehensive" programs is whether and when they might consider some answers a mistake. The implication is that if you have sex without proper "protection" and contract an STD or get pregnant, you have made a mistake. However, if you do take all the proper precautions and still get pregnant or contract an STD, then... ???? ... these programs just don't go there. (So much for being "comprehensive.")
Yeah, so what's the point of wearing a seat belt, driving carefully/defensively, and taking all the other proper precautions, if you still end up getting rammed by a drunk driver? So much for safe driving being "comprehensive."
By mentioning such things, it sets up the expectation they are popular perceptions about abstinence, when in fact they may not be (and I say in most cases definitely aren't).
Oh, so you work with modern-day teens and are aware of what perceptions they have surrounding particular sexual choices?
There may be a philosophical component to the contracting of herpes, but I would suggest that it's tremendously outweighed by the physical.
Yes, which is exactly why telling students not to have sex without also telling them how to reduce their risks if they do engage in sex is dumb.
"Sex is not ART"
Well, it can be...if yer doin' it right.
Speak for yourself, Kevin.
Actually, I've always thought of sex as being comparable to music, myself. You need to know a few basics to get started, and the longer you play, the better you get. People's tastes vary--some like Mozart, others like Metallica. You can play by yourself or with others, in casual jam sessions or in long-established partnerships. And there are moments that are sheer magic. /tangent
You might as well say that philosophy is worthless because it tends to provide competing 'correct' answers.
I think philosophy is very valuable in attempting to reason out and formulate rules to guide oneself and regulate one's own behavior and pretty worthless when the goal of the philosopher is to validate his/her smug righteousness and come up with a list of rules to be imposed on other people less 'worthy'.
So does this abstinence program: http://www.choosingthebest.org/advocacy_toolkit/index.html
Oh?
Choosing the Best teaches students that abstaining from sex as a teenager offers incredible freedom—freedom to pursue goals, dreams, and to enjoy being a teenager—and that sex is wonderful and appropriate in the context of marriage.
Yeah, associating sexual activity with a loss of freedom---there's some real healthy discussion of the emotional aspect, all right.
Not the one linked to above.
When they say "abstinence is the only way to completely eliminate the physical and emotional risks associated with premarital sex," not only is that shaming on religious grounds, it is dismissive to non-heterosexuals. Very telling that the site makes no mention whatsoever of gay students, let alone GLBTQ ones.
It includes factual information on these, but doesn't pretend that having sex with a condom is the equal of abstinence.
It doesn't include demonstrations of their use, either. In fact, all it really covers is failure rates: "Contraceptive methods are presented, including data about efficacy rates with respect to pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."
No doubt. So are the psychological aspects of education. In fact, kids have a natural drive to find the "correct" answer. The problem with "comprehensive" sex ed is that it presents two "correct" answers that are obviously quite different and in many ways are diametrically opposed to each other.
Teenagers (not "kids") are quite capable of making their own choices, even between diametrically-opposed options. It's only fundamentalist social conservatives who need to be given a single, "correct" option.
Here, I'll do you a favor and tell you what to do: You need to support comprehensive sexual education, or else you'll be an ignorant doofus who obviously loves it when teenagers get pregnant.
"abstinence is the only way to completely eliminate the physical and emotional risks associated with premarital sex,"
And changing the laws so that you have to be 20 to get a driver's license would completely eliminate the risks involved in teens driving.
It seems kind of weird that they can't grasp that the physical and emotional risks of sex continue to be present when a couple kids get married at 18 so they can have supposedly 'moral' sex and are not instantly dissipated by a wedding ceremony. Getting married because that's the only way you get to have sex has to be the worst reason in the world.
Kevin, I checked your link and this seriously cracked me up,
"For a student to say that she has decided to become a secondary virgin or that she/he will continue to adhere to her virginity is proof that the abstinence message remains alive and viable.”
Abstinence education seems like a joke to me because there is such a huge focus on virginity, maintaining virginity. Are these the same folks that sponsor/support purity balls? (Which honestly make me want to puke)
A purity ball (also known as a father-daughter purity ball[1] or purity wedding[2]) is a formal ball dance event attended by fathers and their daughters. Purity balls promote virginity until marriage for teenage girls, and are often closely associated with Evangelical Christian. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_ball
There is no curriculum for GLBT students. Do the authors of the program address any GLBT issues? Or do they think everyone is heterosexual? It's not a realistic curriculum.
There are many reasons, but the super-biggie is not only that they have been shown to be ineffective, but that's likely in large part because of the bigger issue, which is that most are medically inaccurate, some outrageously so.
As people and the author have mentioned, sex education is supposed to be education. Just as I'd expect -- and hope! -- that when history or a language is being taught incorrectly, students, allies and educators would have objections, the same goes here. Wouldn't you have a big beef with a Spanish teacher teaching students to conjugate in a way the language is not actually structured? Or teaching that genocide never happened during WWII? If so, I'd hope you'd have the same issue with students being taught that things protect them that don't, or that things put them at risks they don't.
As people and the author have mentioned, sex education is supposed to be education.
Heather thanks for your stellar website, http://www.scarleteen.com/. I often use your website as a source for info or refer people to your site to get accurate credible sexual health info.
There are many reasons, but the super-biggie is not only that they have been shown to be ineffective, but that's likely in large part because of the bigger issue, which is that most are medically inaccurate, some outrageously so.
So you don't have a problem with their message or their desired effects on teens' behavior? Not all of them are ineffective, and not all of them are medically inaccurate. So throw out the bad ones and keep the good.
Right! And the good would include education in all aspects, not just abstinence, and not just before a person is sexually active.
So you don't have a problem with their message or their desired effects on teens' behavior?
No, those are biggies, too. They're just not super-biggies.
Think of medically inaccurate information as Marlon Brando, and the above two issues as Al Pacino and James Caan.
Not all of them are ineffective, and not all of them are medically inaccurate. So throw out the bad ones and keep the good.
I'm all for that! Though I wouldn't necessarily assume there would be any good ones left to keep.
It depends.
But if you could find me even one that a) was not medically inaccurate, b) included queer and gender noncomforming youth in a medically accurate way and without privleging straight/cis gender youth, c) did not include a lot of address of gender or sex that enables abuse and assault and d) whose desired effect was healthy sexuality and realtionships for all youth (not social controls or a given religious mandate, unless taught only for those who prescribed to that religion)?
I'd be delighted to look at it and would probably be totally supportive of it as one curriculum option (I have so far only seen ONE sex ed curriculum of any stripe I thought could be used close to universally, so saying something like that could be one option isn't just about ab-only.).
But if you could find me even one that
b) included queer and gender noncomforming youth in a medically accurate way and without privleging straight/cis gender youth
What could be a better environment for someone who's got confusing attractions than one that emphasizes abstinence? Talk about taking the pressure off. Take some time to be a teenager and prepare for your future rather than feel pressured to act on feelings that might not be there or might not be permanent.
and d) whose desired effect was healthy sexuality and realtionships for all youth (not social controls or a given religious mandate, unless taught only for those who prescribed to that religion)?
A society can certainly hold up abstinence as an ideal without a "religious mandate," especially since even religious mandates about practical things are usually based on reason and self-evident truths, rather than particularly divine revelation.
I find that people usually live up to your expectations of them. Not always, but usually. And therein lies probably the real impetus for "comprehensive" sex education. While there's certainly nothing unreasonable about expecting teenagers to abstain, a great number of "adults" don't want to expect the same of themselves. So in order to seem like they're doing the right thing for teens while leaving themselves the "freedom" that they want without being hypocritical, they've crafted "comprehensive" sex education.
What could be a better environment for someone who's got confusing attractions than one that emphasizes abstinence? Talk about taking the pressure off.
Yes, it's quite relaxing to be told that people will find bliss in heterosexual married unions (without any acknowledgement of other sexual orientations), when you doubt that you are heterosexual, and you don't even have the option of marrying a same-sex partner in your state.
Take some time to be a teenager and prepare for your future rather than feel pressured to act on feelings that might not be there or might not be permanent.
Of course. Perhaps you may not want to "wait" until marriage after all, or do that "purity ball" thing with your dad, or be confirmed as a Catholic.
A society can certainly hold up abstinence as an ideal without a "religious mandate," especially since even religious mandates about practical things are usually based on reason and self-evident truths, rather than particularly divine revelation.
Um... it's not that self-evident that choosing not to engage responsibly in one of the greatest human-bonding experiences is or should be an "ideal," any more than refusing to eat delicious food should be an "ideal."
I find that people usually live up to your expectations of them. Not always, but usually.
Well then, we may as well give them information on how to protect themselves if they don't "live up to our expectations" then, shouldn't we?
And therein lies probably the real impetus for "comprehensive" sex education. While there's certainly nothing unreasonable about expecting teenagers to abstain, a great number of "adults" don't want to expect the same of themselves. So in order to seem like they're doing the right thing for teens while leaving themselves the "freedom" that they want without being hypocritical, they've crafted "comprehensive" sex education.
Because God forbid those abstinent teens ever become responsibly sexual adults. Unmarried ones, even!
Are you suggesting that those of us -- and youth who are also -- who are queer and/or gendernonconforming are confused? Perhaps also suggesting that LGB orientations are somehow less permanent than being hetero is?
Or are you acknowledging that REGARDLESS of one's gender identity or sexual orientation that sex, gender and relationships can be confusing?
Or maybe you're saying you're confused?
Or maybe you're saying you're confused?
Perhaps Kevin would benefit if he practiced abstinence from abstinence-only advocacy. He would have time to be ignorant of teenagers' real needs, rather than feeling pressured to act on heterosexually puritanical feelings that might not be there or might not be permanent.
<<I find that people usually live up to your expectations of them. Not always, but usually.>>
I don't think I have the right to "expect" anything of other people regarding their sexuality, other than that they engage in sexual behaviors with consenting partners. They don't need my approval. And they don't need yours.
Do these "comprehensive" programs teach that even if you use a contraceptive that you should be prepared to handle a pregnancy or an STD if you have sex?
As the other commenters have noted, they sure do! So when you were arguing against comprehensive sex ed earlier, you weren't actually arguing against these programs as they exist in reality, but against your woefully inaccurate mental impression of them. I'm sure you won't commit this mistake in the future, since you'll make the effort to inform yourself of what comprehensive sex ed actually is (and isn't) before making an argument against it.
Exactly!
Of course sex ed isn't all "have all the sex you want, just use a condom because they're %100 effective!"
As it's been said many times, sex ed isn't about encouraging sexual activity, (because that's not necessary) it's about giving information and trusting that teens will be responsible and respect themselves and their partners. Because at the end of the day that's all you can do, barring locking your kids in their rooms until they're 18. Good luck with that.
As far as being told they'd have to handle an unplanned pregnancy, I think abortion info should be part of a sex ed curriculum as well-(where to get one, information on legislation, cost, etc..)- again not to encourage, but only to make the info available to those who might need it. But that's probably some pretty far fetched wishful thinking ;) maybe one day...
By the way, Max, it's been so great to read your posts here. Really appreciate your contributions. :)
Why in the world is there even a discussion in this thread about the "legitimacy" of abstinence-only education programs? There's nothing wrong with including abstinence as a choice within a COMPREHENSIVE sex-ed program, but we have all seen that abstinence-only programs have been proven time and time again to be totally ineffective and inaccurate. They do more harm than good when it comes to goals of preventing unwanted pregnancies and preventing STD transmission. And not to mention that the abstract concept of "virginity" is based on religious belief and is usually extremely sexist.
Teenagers deserve to know about sex, and they shouldn't be learning about it from pornography. I started asking detailed questions about sex when I was 6 years old. Fortunately, I had parents who were able to give me answers, and age-appropriate books. Their willingness to answer my questions early in childhood gave me the courage to ask for help with contraceptive options later on during teenage years. But what about the kids/teenagers whose parents refuse to answer?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1423677120070414
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504871/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003685699_abstinence29.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html
This comment has been removed.
RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.
--RH Reality Check staff
This is from 3 years ago, and covers a wide range of issues regarding sex-ed. One of the findings was the kids who recieve abstinence-only sex ed are no more likely to abstain from sex than kids who recieve comprehensive sex ed. I've seen other studies showing that kids who have comprehensive sex ed are more likely to abstain than those who have had abstinence-only programs, but on a cursory Google search they didn't turn up. No matter, showing that comprehensive sex ed does not increase likelihood of teen/pre-marital sex is all that is needed for this particular discussion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/2/gpr100202.html
If you aren't familiar with AGI, they are known for their incredibly thorough research methods and lack of bias in data collection. Though their results tend to support liberal policies, their studies are commonly cited by conservatives and liberals alike (particularly their information about sexuality-related issues).
Edited to add:
Here is their most recent article on sex education (winter 2010, so probably the most recent, best source you will find on the subject).
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/13/1/gpr130210.html
It addresses the study you were talking about in the middle of the page. It turns out that the data actually reinforces what Guttmacher found 3 years ago.
The difference in delaying sex between participants who completed the comprehensive class and those who completed the abstinence class was small and not statistically significant.
...
Moreover, Jemmott and his colleagues took pains to point out that the abstinence-only program they tested was a far cry from and would not have met the restrictive federal criteria for programs that, until this year, were eligible for federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding... Therefore, the evaluation does not contradict the strong body of evidence that rigid abstinence-only-until-marriage programs of the type previously funded under federal law do not work.
So... this program cannot be used to draw inferences about other abstinence-only programs, because it was markedly different (read the article to find out how it differed). AND it didn't have a significant effect on teen sexual activity. In general, abstinence-only sex ed does not significantly effect the likelihood that teens will have sex, but it does increase their chances of contracting STI's or becoming unintentionally pregnant. This is something that has been well documented.
Here's a study on how California reduced its teen pregnancy rate. Hint: they didn't use abstinence only-sex education to do it. Check out the bottom of the page, where trends are compared to those in Southern states.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/13/2/gpr130218.html
I really don't see any reason not to use comprehensive sex education programs. They don't increase the percentage of teens who have sex, and they do decrease the incidence of negative consequences of teen sex. To me, that says they're better than abstinence-only programs.
And are you suggesting that someone is more likely to choose abstinence after going through a "comprehensive" program than they are after going through an abstinence-only program? Or is it just that those who make the wrong choice who end up in better shape if they went through a "comprehensive" program?
No, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm saying that if absintence-only programs have a goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies and STDs, then they are failing. Wow, that's amazing that you found one article that says "abstinence-only programs MIGHT work." Yeah, I'm totally convinced now, especially when faced with all of the evidence against such programs! And why are you framing this as right vs. wrong choices? choosing to be sexually active is not wrong (and neither is abstaining from it).
A lot of good your parents' answers did you - you still went on to make the wrong choice.
Excuse me? Look, a-hole, my personal decision to use contraceptives and engage in safe sexual activity was/is NOT wrong. I think I knew/know more about what's right for myself than you. For you to suggest otherwise is incredibly demeaning and sexist. Who the hell do you think you are to tell someone that abstinence is the only "right" and all sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong? Here's a hint: that decision is none of your damn business. I understand that your religious upbringing might have told you that it's okay to condemn women and teenagers for having a healthy sexuality, but you are seriously crossing a line.
Yeah, seriously, that comment was beyond out-of-line. It's one of the most personal insults I have ever seen here, and you shouldn't have to put up with that kind of bullshit. That level of sheer rudeness is definitely worth reporting to the moderators. Honestly, I think this guy should be banned. It's obvious he isn't capable of respectful discourse on this site.
Who the hell are you to judge, Kevin? Who are you to call her choices right or wrong when they affect no one but herself and her partner(s) and have absolutely nothing to do with you at all?
Do you live her life? Do you have her experiences? Do you have her thoughts and dreams and desires and dislikes?
Since you obviously don't, stuff your judgment. You have no right to judge what's right and wrong for anyone else's (consensual) sex life--and you have less right to comment on it.
Mr. Rahe
You have been repeatedly reminded in this space and asked more than once not to take every discussion off-topic and, also, to refrain from applying your personal moral agenda to every and anyone in the world.
Your view of the world is yours and you are free to live by it and to apply it to your family. You are not free here to malign or otherwise tell other people how to live and especially not to demean or degrade the beliefs or life experiences or personal choices others share in this space.
This is a final warning. Our next step will be to ban you from this site.
Jodi Jacobson
You have been repeatedly reminded in this space and asked more than once not to take every discussion off-topic
I don't believe that any of my comments on this article were off topic one iota.
and, also, to refrain from applying your personal moral agenda to every and anyone in the world.
And exactly how have I done that? If the topic is "comprehensive" sex education and the idea behind same is to give teens the information they need to make a choice, and the choices are to abstain from premarital sex or to not abstain, and for each person there is a right choice and a wrong choice, and someone goes public with their choice but is unable or unwilling to defend it as the right choice (which has to mean at least that they saw it as better for themselves than the other choice), then how can you say that my suggesting that they made the wrong choice is "applying your personal moral agenda" to them?
While my comment may have sounded like an insult, it was not intended as such. And even if it was an insult, know that I (or more accurately my wife) was a victim before I was a perpetrator. (The offending comment to which I refer appeared in another thread for at least a couple days, but has since conveniently disappeared.)
You have previously received a warning about driving conversations off-topic on other threads.
Debate the "morality" of sex all you want. Refrain from your comments such as "Well your parents obviously did something wrong since you made the 'wrong' choice."
If the topic is "comprehensive" sex education and the idea behind same is to give teens the information they need to make a choice, and the choices are to abstain from premarital sex or to not abstain, and for each person there is a right choice and a wrong choice, and someone goes public with their choice but is unable or unwilling to defend it as the right choice (which has to mean at least that they saw it as better for themselves than the other choice), then how can you say that my suggesting that they made the wrong choice is "applying your personal moral agenda" to them?
I understand that your position is that there is only ever "one right choice." That is quite clear.
We stand for the rights of all persons to make the right choices for them, and to the rights to a safe, healthy and fulfilling sexual and reproductive life free of coercion from any source.
Refrain from applying your personal morality to the choices shared by specific persons on this site.
It's pretty easy.
Refrain from applying your personal morality to the choices shared by specific persons on this site.
Those who promote "comprehensive" sex education consistently refer to results that they claim show it reduces teen pregnancy and STD rates. When a researcher tallies the impact such a program has on behavior, they have one tally for those who abstained and another for those who did not, with the latter group perhaps broken down into subgroups depending on the types and/or frequency of contraceptive use. If the researcher is objective and has no agenda beyond reducing pregnancy and STI rates, they're going to consider a program that produces more tallies on the abstinence side than the non-abstinence side more successful than one that produces more tallies on the non-abstinence side, even if in both cases all those on the non-abstinence side used contraceptive methods perfectly. In fact, they would consider having all the tallies on the abstinence side to be the ideal. That means that, objectively, abstinence is always the best choice, which means it is always the right choice, if the objective is to reduce pregnancy and STD rates.
If any sex education program is going to be consistent what what is objectively right, it ought to promote abstinence over sexual activity. The "comprehensive" programs I've seen don't do that, however. In fact, they do quite the opposite. In Advocates for Youth's Life Planning Education program for example, there are only 11 comparisons made between abstinence and sex with contraception. In 6 of those instances, the two are presented as equals (e.g. "How can you avoid pregnancy? (Answer: Abstain from sexual intercourse or use contraceptives, including condoms.)"). In two of the others, abstinence is merely acknowledged as the most effective method of contraception in the course of an argument that condoms are effective against pregnancy and STDs. The other three could be said to be reasonable and accurate. The other instances in which abstinence is mentioned are apart from either an explicit or implied comparison with the alternative, and there are only 7 of those that are neutral or positive. Two of them are simply entries in a table (HIV risks and contraceptive failure rates) and one is silly (abstinence is "safe" for HIV transmission). And the only one that goes into any kind of detail uses the presumption that sexual contact will still occur in order to negate its benefits to a degree. The two other references to abstinence are in some way negative. The real agenda of this program, however, becomes clear when you look at how it treats the alternative to abstinence. While it includes no activities that focus on abstinence, there are several centered on contraception and condoms. And while it does occasionally acknowledge that condoms are "second best" at preventing STDs and/or pregnancy, they're never presented in a negative light. The most telling statistics, however, are probably those about the frequency of certain words. "Abstinence" appears 34 times in the 565-page document, while there are only 12 uses of "abstain." "Contraceptive," however, gets mentioned 83 times, "contraception" appears 68 times, and "condom" gets the royal treatment of 237 uses.
While you might be able to say technically that "comprehensive" sex education programs encourage both abstinence and "safer" sex, in no way shape or form could you claim that they promote them equally.
Getting back to your original complaint, my assertion that Ms. "plume" made the "wrong" decision was, in the absence of any subjective argument to the contrary, merely an objective deduction based on the facts she presented. To find fault with me for pointing it out is like complaining that I insist that the sum and 2 and 2 is 4.
If any sex education program is going to be consistent what what is objectively right, it ought to promote abstinence over sexual activity.
If any traffic-safety program is going to be consistent with what is objectively right, it ought to promote staying home over going into traffic.
Getting back to your original complaint, my assertion that Ms. "plume" made the "wrong" decision was, in the absence of any subjective argument to the contrary, merely an objective deduction based on the facts she presented. To find fault with me for pointing it out is like complaining that I insist that the sum and 2 and 2 is 4.
I would like to see the mathematical proof for your assertion that sex is bad.
Since the proportion of teens having sex is the same for both types of programs, the teen pregnancy and STI rates are the best indicator of program-effectiveness. Comprehensive sex-ed results in lower incidences of teen pregnancy and STI contraction. Objectively, comprehensive programs are more effective (read "better").
You seriously just don't get that the decision whether to have sex does NOT have an objective answer. This is an individual decision based on the weighing of numerous variables within the context of their own lives, meaning it is subjective. It is not for you (or anyone other than the involved parties, so long as all are consenting) to say whether it is right or wrong. Also, don't play innocent... you were being deliberately insulting, and you know it.
You seriously just don't get that the decision whether to have sex does NOT have an objective answer. This is an individual decision based on the weighing of numerous variables within the context of their own lives, meaning it is subjective.
There is an objective answer, as I demonstrated above. However, you are correct in that the decision about whether to have premarital sex is not usually made objectively. Not only are one's personal desires and aspirations involved, but so are something called values, which are likely part of the "numerous variables" you cite and would include the moral codes one strives to adhere to. However, if such decisions aren't going to be based purely on facts (in other words deduced - which would make them objective), then I think you have to agree that it's a combination of facts and values that provide the necessary context for making them. The question this naturally leads to, then, is this: Is it responsible to provide facts about reproduction, abstinence and contraceptives to a teen before we're sure that they've acquired the values they need to use them wisely?
The question this naturally leads to, then, is this: Is it responsible to provide facts about reproduction, abstinence and contraceptives to a teen before we're sure that they've acquired the values they need to use them wisely?
Why would withholding the facts from teens result in their having values or encourage them to act wisely? The alternative is not 'I don't know nothin' so I won't do nothin' but instead making decisions in ignorance or on the basis of inaccurate information provided by their friends. The schools in this country cannot appropriately teach minority religious 'values'.
You may teach your children what values you wish at home, as I did, and opt your child out of sex education classes to keep them ignorant. Your religious freedom and parental rights do not include preventing me or other parents from having our children informed as we wish.
To start, your reasoning assumes that all teens would eventually acquire a given set of values and this just isn't true. Sadly, there are no guarantees with moral reasoning and just because a person can doesn't mean they do.
Is it responsible to provide facts about reproduction, abstinence and contraceptives to a teen before we're sure that they've acquired the values they need to use them wisely?
Using your reasoning that would suggest we shouldn't teach facts until people have a value/skill set...
Is it responsible to teach children numbers before they've acquired the skills to add, subtract, multiply, and divide? For that matter, should we teach children math if they don't personally value it?
Is it responsible to teach children to cook before they've established lifelong healthy eating habits?
Is it responsible to teach children to wash their hands before we're sure they personally value health?
Is it responsible to teach children the rules of the road before we're sure they've acquired the values to be "responsible" drivers?
Is it responsible to teach children how to balance a checkbook before we're sure they've acquired the values they need to spend money wisely?
Is it responsible to teach children that God exists before we're sure they've acquired the cognitive reasoning ability to decide for themselves if God exists?
Learning facts helps individuals to clarify their values. The introduction of facts does not generally undo years of values training from parents or religion... unless that values training was based on lies and misinformation (which I'm sure is a sincere fear on the part of some fundies).
You are more than free to instill whatever value system you so desire in your child(ren) but expecting the rest of the world to bow to YOUR examples and desires is narcissistic and self-involved.
Using your reasoning that would suggest we shouldn't teach facts until people have a value/skill set...
Is it responsible to teach children numbers before they've acquired the skills to add, subtract, multiply, and divide? For that matter, should we teach children math if they don't personally value it?
Is it responsible to teach children to cook before they've established lifelong healthy eating habits?
Is it responsible to teach children how to balance a checkbook before we're sure they've acquired the values they need to spend money wisely?
The need to teach values along with facts has something to do with the seriousness of the subject.
A 5-year-old carelessly flinging numbers about has never resulted in himself or anyone else contracting a lifelong disease. Nor has a 9-year-old's foray into the art of fine cuisine ever gone so awry that it caused the conception of another human being. Finally, no heart has ever been broken by an act of simple addition, or even subtraction.
A 5-year-old carelessly flinging numbers about has never resulted in himself or anyone else contracting a lifelong disease.
No, but I bet you can find plenty of stories of youngsters harming themselves or others through inappropriate use of dangersous objects (guns, chemicals, knives, etc.).
You didn't demonstrate anything, Kevin. You completely and utterly failed to prove that abstinence-only sex ed is "better" than comprehensive sex ed, just like you failed to prove choosing to abstain is better than choosing to have sex. All you did was state your opinion, and then you called it objective. The body of evidence from legitimate research organizations does not support your claims in the least.
And it is ridiculous to suggest that ignorance is ever better than education. Exactly how do you suggest you determine when teens have aquired the values they need to use sexual information wisely? Whose values do teens need to have? What if some people (like me and damn near everyone else on this site) never acquire the values YOU think they need? What if some teens have the "proper values" and others don't? Do you only give education to the ones you think deserve it? The hell with that, educate everyone who needs it... and that is everyone who has hit puberty.
Total, undeniable failure is the only thing you have accomplished in this thread.
You didn't demonstrate anything, Kevin. You completely and utterly failed to prove that abstinence-only sex ed is "better" than comprehensive sex ed, just like you failed to prove choosing to abstain is better than choosing to have sex.
I don't believe there is much room to dispute the assertions in my comment of Sept. 20 @ 11:51am that "comprehensive" sex ed programs (those for which I have details anyway) are objectively wrong and that given the choice between abstinence and "safer" sex that the former is objectively right. At least, no one has attempted to dispute them.
And it is ridiculous to suggest that ignorance is ever better than education.
I would never suggest such a thing. In fact, I have never seen anyone suggest a fact that would be included in a "comprehensive" sex ed program that wouldn't be found in a sex ed program that promotes only abstinence.
Exactly how do you suggest you determine when teens have aquired the values they need to use sexual information wisely?
The only way to be sure is to teach the values along with the facts. Of course, the standard protections for the rights of parents to handle the subject completely on their own still applies (regardless of whether the program promotes abstinence only or not).
Total, undeniable failure is the only thing you have accomplished in this thread.
If that were obvious it wouldn't need to be stated.
given the choice between abstinence and "safer" sex that the former is objectively right.
If we're talking form the standpoint of preventing pregnancy and STIs, then yeah there's an objective answer. From the perspective of being in a relationship, though, there isn't an objective answer. I mean, I don't have sex to get pregnant or an STI. Neither is a goal for me. But there are reasons for having sex that have no objective answers.
I don't believe there is much room to dispute the assertions in my comment of Sept. 20 @ 11:51am that "comprehensive" sex ed programs (those for which I have details anyway) are objectively wrong and that given the choice between abstinence and "safer" sex that the former is objectively right. At least, no one has attempted to dispute them.
No one has disputed my assertion that a traffic-safety program that teaches kids to stay at home instead of how to drive safely is "objectively" right, either. Unfortunately, the whole point of the exercise is not to crow about being "right," but to do something to reduce the rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies among young people and the population in general.
Teaching young people not to have sex works great up until the point that they do. Then, it works terribly. But all those people out there who remain celibate for life can certainly be counted as successes for your approach.
I would never suggest such a thing. In fact, I have never seen anyone suggest a fact that would be included in a "comprehensive" sex ed program that wouldn't be found in a sex ed program that promotes only abstinence.
How about "Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are different sexual orientations, and it is possible to lead a healthy and fulfilling sex life with any of them?"
The only way to be sure is to teach the values along with the facts. Of course, the standard protections for the rights of parents to handle the subject completely on their own still applies (regardless of whether the program promotes abstinence only or not).
Okay. We will teach Reform Jewish values then. Lesson #1: Refrain from sexual activity if your partner can't prepare a halfway decent matzo ball.
If that were obvious it wouldn't need to be stated.
It's obvious to everyone but you.
No one has disputed my assertion that a traffic-safety program that teaches kids to stay at home instead of how to drive safely is "objectively" right, either.
In cases where everything good that is accomplished by driving can be accomplished just as well by staying home, then you are right. In cases where the good accomplished by driving cannot be equally accomplished by staying at home, then your assertion has ignored relevant facts.
Unfortunately, the whole point of the exercise is not to crow about being "right," but to do something to reduce the rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies among young people and the population in general.
I think it's clear that the best way to do that is to abstain from sexual activity until one gets married for life.
Teaching young people not to have sex works great up until the point that they do.
The same goes with teaching them otherwise.
How about "Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are different sexual orientations, and it is possible to lead a healthy and fulfilling sex life with any of them?"
So you are admitting, then, that these lifestyles are incompatible with abstinence, which is admitted even by "comprehensive" sex programs to be the healthiest choice? In other words - what you're saying is that those lifestyles are inherently less healthy than others.
In cases where everything good that is accomplished by driving can be accomplished just as well by staying home, then you are right. In cases where the good accomplished by driving cannot be equally accomplished by staying at home, then your assertion has ignored relevant facts.
So I guess your assertion is correct to the extent that not having sex accomplishes just as much good as having sex. (I.e. that sex is worthless.)
I think it's clear that the best way to do that is to abstain from sexual activity until one gets married for life.
That's because it's only clear to you how a wedding ring prevents the transmission of STDs and occurrence of unwanted pregnancies.
The same goes with teaching them otherwise.
Which is why comprehensive sex ed covers both how not to have sex (e.g. resisting peer pressure) and how to have sex safely. So I guess it's objectively better than abstinence-only sex ed after all.
So you are admitting, then, that these lifestyles are incompatible with abstinence, which is admitted even by "comprehensive" sex programs to be the healthiest choice? In other words - what you're saying is that those lifestyles are inherently less healthy than others.
I guess it's true. Asexuality is the only healthy lifestyle there is. Thankfully, we have IVF nowadays, so people don't even need to have sex to reproduce.
So I guess your assertion is correct to the extent that not having sex accomplishes just as much good as having sex. (I.e. that sex is worthless.)
Since outside of marriage the possible positive effects of sexual activity cannot possibly surpass its potential negative effects, then yes, that is what I'm saying.
Which is why comprehensive sex ed covers both how not to have sex (e.g. resisting peer pressure) and how to have sex safely.
Advocates for Youth's program, at least, does not claim that it teaches how to have "safe" sex or how to have sex "safely." It only claims to show how sex can be made "safer," which, depending on the STI you're talking about, can be a pretty minimal percentage.
I guess it's true. Asexuality is the only healthy lifestyle there is.
I neutralized my own argument by a bit of careless reading. Put a tally on your side. :-)
Since outside of marriage the possible positive effects of sexual activity cannot possibly surpass its potential negative effects, then yes, that is what I'm saying.
Since the potential negative effects include maternal death, I guess your statement applies even more so inside of marriage.
Advocates for Youth's program, at least, does not claim that it teaches how to have "safe" sex or how to have sex "safely." It only claims to show how sex can be made "safer," which, depending on the STI you're talking about, can be a pretty minimal percentage.
Yes, the percentage can be minimal if you don't know what you're doing, which is kind of the whole point of education in the first place.
And of course, "driving safety" courses only teach you how to drive in a safer fashion than you would if you didn't take the course, but no one feels the need to belabor this obvious point when someone claims that these courses teach "how to drive safely."
I neutralized my own argument by a bit of careless reading. Put a tally on your side. :-)
I'm running out of space for these things!
I don't believe there is much room to dispute the assertions in my comment of Sept. 20 @ 11:51am that "comprehensive" sex ed programs (those for which I have details anyway) are objectively wrong and that given the choice between abstinence and "safer" sex that the former is objectively right.
Well, good golly, I see TONS of room. The only way that 'comprehensive' sex ed can be labeled 'objectively wrong' is starting from the premise that sex is 'wrong' except when it occurs in rigidly defined parameters and that attempts to influence the likelihood of conception are 'wrong' because the ONLY purpose of sex is conception. You may operate under those premises, but most other people do not.
In fact, I have never seen anyone suggest a fact that would be included in a "comprehensive" sex ed program that wouldn't be found in a sex ed program that promotes only abstinence.
Sex ed programs that 'promote only abstinence' do not provide accurate information about all of the different types of birth control.
The only way that 'comprehensive' sex ed can be labeled 'objectively wrong' is starting from the premise that sex is 'wrong' except when it occurs in rigidly defined parameters and that attempts to influence the likelihood of conception are 'wrong' because the ONLY purpose of sex is conception.
The justification for my assertion that "comprehensive" sex ed programs are wrong began with no such idea. Go back and read it. It requires only the dispassionate objective of desiring to reduce teenage pregnancy and STIs.
Sex ed programs that 'promote only abstinence' do not provide accurate information about all of the different types of birth control.
If "accurate information" includes things like how to install a condom, then yes, I'll admit that programs that promote only abstinence don't provide all the information that "comprehensive" programs do. However, I'm more interested in information that would be relevant before one makes the choice to abstain or have sex. (Not that the schedules and troubles of contraceptive concoctions and contraptions aren't themselves something of a deterrent to their use.)
If "accurate information" includes things like how to install a condom, then yes, I'll admit that programs that promote only abstinence don't provide all the information that "comprehensive" programs do. However, I'm more interested in information that would be relevant before one makes the choice to abstain or have sex.
That makes one of us. Look, just because you don't feel you need that information doesn't mean that others don't, whether they decide to have sex or not. I went through a comprehensive sex-ed program that started at age 12. One, knowing about the contraceptive options available to me didn't make me more likely to have sex. I became sexually active when I was ready to and no sooner.
Two, now that I AM sexually active, that information is helping me to decide how to conduct my sex life. Was knowing how to put on a condom relevant to me at 12? No. Now, at 25, that information is useful, and I'm glad I have it. Sex ed isn't about teacing teens about sex--it's about teaching teens about becoming adults, and making adult decisions. Ignorance is never helpful with that.
Sex ed isn't about teacing teens about sex--it's about teaching teens about becoming adults, and making adult decisions.
We usually use the adjective "adult" to mean something decided by an adequate amount of reason and not just emotion. I say that sex outside of marriage fails to achieve that standard. It's much more of an adolescent thing that adults do than an adult thing that adolescents do.
We usually use the adjective "adult" to mean something decided by an adequate amount of reason and not just emotion.
Access to information make reasoning easier.
I say that sex outside of marriage fails to achieve this standard.
People have sex outside of marriage for the same reasons they have sex inside of marriage. That slip of paper you get after saying 'I do' doesn't make those reasons inherently more adult.
We usually use the adjective "adult" to mean something decided by an adequate amount of reason and not just emotion.
What a very odd definition of 'adult'. By this definition that probably aren't many 'adult' decisions made by anyone ever.
Your rejection of 'just emotion' means decisions should not be influenced by love, joy, trust, guilt, remorse, patriotism or faith itself, which by definition is not based in 'reason'.
Your rejection of 'just emotion' means decisions should not be influenced by love, joy, trust, guilt, remorse, patriotism or faith itself, which by definition is not based in 'reason'.
"not just emotion" does not mean "absent emotion." I never implied that emotion cannot be involved in an "adult" decision, only that whatever amount of emotion is involved there must be an "adequate amount of reason."
"not just emotion" does not mean "absent emotion." I never implied that emotion cannot be involved in an "adult" decision, only that whatever amount of emotion is involved there must be an "adequate amount of reason."
Considering the numerous health benefits of sex, there's plenty of reason to get it on!
Considering the numerous health benefits of sex, there's plenty of reason to get it on!
Only a couple of those benefits are exclusive to having sex, and one of them only applies to men (who cares about them?). The other is something you don't really want outside of marriage, anyway. (What value is there in bonding with someone you don't plan to stay with?)
Uh, maybe because there is more than one way to bond? Of course, with your black and white view of the world, you might have missed that....
Also, ProChoicers do care about men. It's telling, though, through your own comments, what PLers think of them. Aside from getting them to receive privileged status, you don't....
Only a couple of those benefits are exclusive to having sex,
So? Non-exclusive benefits are still benefits. And the exclusive benefits cannot be obtained via abstinence.
and one of them only applies to men (who cares about them?)
We do. Why do you hate men??
The other is something you don't really want outside of marriage, anyway. (What value is there in bonding with someone you don't plan to stay with?)
Good question. I guess the whole "making friends" thing is just a waste of time after all.
First you say everyone should be governed by 'logic' and 'objective truth' and then you let emotions back in but insist on an "adequate amount of reason".
Somehow I'm sure that you would consider the amount of reason "adequate" only if people agreed with you -- that formal marriage contains some mystical imprimature that sanctifies sex.
Most women don't want to return to the bad old days where they had no choice but to suffer repeated pregnancies while trying to care for and find enough food for the average 8 or so children.
Somehow I'm sure that you would consider the amount of reason "adequate" only if people agreed with you -- that formal marriage contains some mystical imprimature that sanctifies sex.
I've made no assertions about the propriety of sex within marriage. That, however, might be a bit off the topic. (Okay, go ahead - YOU go first.)
The justification for my assertion that "comprehensive" sex ed programs are wrong began with no such idea. Go back and read it. It requires only the dispassionate objective of desiring to reduce teenage pregnancy and STIs.
As well as the not-so-dispassionate objective of desiring that everyone stop having non-marital sex already.
If "accurate information" includes things like how to install a condom, then yes, I'll admit that programs that promote only abstinence don't provide all the information that "comprehensive" programs do.
So abstinence-only programs are inferior. Thank you for admitting this.
However, I'm more interested in information that would be relevant before one makes the choice to abstain or have sex.
Yep, comprehensive programs cover that too.
However, I'm more interested in information that would be relevant before one makes the choice to abstain or have sex.
Yep, comprehensive programs cover that too.
The original challenge was that programs that promote only abstinence don't include all the facts that "comprehensive" sex ed programs do. Not the other way around.
The original challenge was that programs that promote only abstinence don't include all the facts that "comprehensive" sex ed programs do. Not the other way around.
Right, and you failed that challenge.
But that's okay. We fail the other-way-around challenge too. We don't give students the "fact" that homosexuality is evil and will make you sad and unloveable, for one.
Comprehensive also leaves out the "fact" that women's only purpose is reproduction so women shouldn't have careers and the "fact" that sex 'contaminates' girls so that they're 'dirty' and the "fact" that rape is the fault of the victim for being 'provocative'. Of course, none of those "facts" is actually objectively TRUE.
The original challenge was that programs that promote only abstinence don't include all the facts that "comprehensive" sex ed programs do. Not the other way around.
Right, and you failed that challenge.
I challenged back that no one has suggested a fact that would be presented in a "comprehensive" sex ed class but not in one that promotes only abstinence. As yet, no one has provided such a fact that would actually be relevant in the decision to abstain vs. have "safer" sex.
I challenged back that no one has suggested a fact that would be presented in a "comprehensive" sex ed class but not in one that promotes only abstinence. As yet, no one has provided such a fact that would actually be relevant in the decision to abstain vs. have "safer" sex.
"It is your decision if and when to become sexually active, and yours alone. Some people may wish to wait until they are married. Some people might not. Some people may prefer never to engage in sex. All approaches are equally valid, and which one is right for you will depend on your goals and value system."
There, I did it. Now get your smelly onus off of me!
"It is your decision if and when to become sexually active, and yours alone. Some people may wish to wait until they are married. Some people might not. Some people may prefer never to engage in sex. All approaches are equally valid, and which one is right for you will depend on your goals and value system."
"All approaches are equally valid" is clearly a value judgment or an opinion (or perhaps just wishful thinking), not an objective fact. The rest of the last sentence clearly indicates the need to ensure that values are in place before teaching or taught along with any facts related to the subject. The first four sentences are obvious facts that I believe are included here only to support the value judgment, but wouldn't be appropriate exclusively in a "comprehensive" sex ed program.
I would be curious which sex ed program this came from - I cannot find any such language in AFY's.
As opposed to your value judgment that only abstinence is appropriate? Education, theory AND practice-wise, that is...?
"All approaches are equally valid" is clearly a value judgment or an opinion (or perhaps just wishful thinking), not an objective fact.
No, it is an objective fact. "Valid" only means that the option is legal, and that it can lead to health and happiness. It doesn't say whether the option is "good," or "right," or "acceptable to Kevin Rahe."
The rest of the last sentence clearly indicates the need to ensure that values are in place before teaching or taught along with any facts related to the subject.
I think parents can handle the "values" part reasonably well. Unless you'd like us to teach Reform Jewish values.
"Valid" only means that the option is legal, and that it can lead to health and happiness.
It depends on the definition of "valid" you're using. Sure, they're both "having legal efficacy or force." But they're not equally valid if valid means, "appropriate to the end in view" and the end is avoiding pregnancy and STIs.
And what was the name of that program again?
It depends on the definition of "valid" you're using. Sure, they're both "having legal efficacy or force." But they're not equally valid if valid means, "appropriate to the end in view" and the end is avoiding pregnancy and STIs.
It's a good thing I'm using the definition of "valid" that means "reasonable decisions that students may make at some point in their lives," and not "what's acceptable to Kevin Rahe."
And what was the name of that program again?
That would be "Most Comprehensive Sex-Ed Programs(tm)." I think "But What I Said Is a Paraphrase, Not a Direct Quote(tm)" may also have it too.
If the goal is REALLY avoiding pregnancy, then the problem could be solved by installing free IUD's in every 12 year old girl and doing mandatory testing at school for STI's right along with the TB tine tests and checks of height and weight. But of course those aren't really the goals -- the goal instead is to keep teens (and everyone else) from having sex at all because it's 'nasty'.
"All approaches are equally valid" is clearly a value judgment or an opinion (or perhaps just wishful thinking), not an objective fact.
The statement is instead an absence of value judgments and a recognition that different people can have different opinions.
"Marriage is a requirement before sex is safe" is not an 'objective fact' either but indeed wistful thinking -- men have never complied and so marriage can only protect their wives from getting an STD from someone ELSE.
In addition, being married does not magically make every conception/pregnancy/child welcome or wanted which is why the great majority of married couples use birth control. Most men and women don't want to go back to the 'good old days' and have 8 children.
being married does not magically make every conception/pregnancy/child welcome or wanted which is why the great majority of married couples use birth control.
Okay, then perhaps we can agree on the compromise that information about artificial contraceptives will be provided in marriage preparation classes.
Okay, then perhaps we can agree on the compromise that information about artificial contraceptives will be provided in marriage preparation classes.
I suppose you also think such classes should be mandatory? (Don't get me wrong, I think they're a good idea, but I'm not sure I'd support making them a legal requirement). And what good would that do couples who decide not to get married? Not everyone sees that choice as desirable or necessary.
Maybe we could all also remember that not only does everyone not WANT to get married, but that not everyone has the legal RIGHT to get married, or other kinds of privilege regarding marriage? Are only those people who want to get married and who can get married people entitled to sex ed or any other kind of education?
What marriage preparation classes? I am aware that people have to get a government license to marry and have STD testing beforehand, but I certainly wasn't aware that there was any governmental requirement for marriage preparation classes.
The only marriage preparation classes that I know are run by individual churches, and certainly no one could mandate that churches provide any such information. Why would the church do that? After all, their 'business model' is based on the known malleability of people who are poor and desperate and there's nothing as likely to result in miserable poverty as having more children than you can support. Certainly Churches need a consistent population of 'needy' for advertising purposes -- those sad-eyed abandoned kids are a great way to extract money from the well-off (from which they can skim a generous amount to support themselves).
I think a better compromise is for the schools to provide accurate information to everyone and for those parents who want their children to remain ignorant to withdraw them from the class, or from the school for that matter. After all, facing a 'career' of forced fecundity, girls don't actually need any more reading and writing than it would take to handle the grocery list or read the instructions for the washing machine.
artificial vs. natural?
I think it's silly and ironic that anti-choicers say "artificial contraceptives" like it's a bad thing, because they're using a computer to say this, which is artificial.
Humans have benefited greatly by technology and "artificial" things, so it sounds ironic that you are saying artificial is bad when you are using a computer and the internet. (Like that's really natural) So birth control can't advance technologically? Women should stay in the "stone ages" when it comes to birth control because a bunch of old celibate men say so? I think not.
Hey as long as we're on the "natural" kick, let's outlaw Viagra too. That's really artificial. Then when guys can't get it up anymore they can ponder on how natural they are.
It requires only the dispassionate objective of desiring to reduce teenage pregnancy and STIs.
Studies have shown repeatedly that Abstinence-Only education is LESS effective in reaching those goals. Comprehensive sex education, which INCLUDES abstinence but is not limited to it, is MORE effective in reaching those goals.
However, I'm more interested in information that would be relevant before one makes the choice to abstain or have sex.
All of the information is relevant before one makes the choice to abstain or have sex. Some teenagers are discouraged from making unwise choices by the knowledge that sex should include an advance discussion with potential partners about birth control AND obtaining that birth control in advance.
Studies have shown repeatedly that Abstinence-Only education is LESS effective in reaching those goals. Comprehensive sex education, which INCLUDES abstinence but is not limited to it, is MORE effective in reaching those goals.
The fact is, even the best of these programs - whether "comprehensive" or abstinence-only - have been only marginally successful. None of them could be described as "great" except in relative terms compared to other programs, rather than the wider scope of the whole problem. The problem with "comprehensive" programs such as AFY's is that by emphasizing "safer" sex over abstinence to a tremendous degree, they have self-imposed limits that restrict their possible impact. If we really want to do what's best for teens, we should figure out what is significant about the programs that are currently most successful at compelling teens to alter their behavior, and implement those elements in a program that promotes exclusively or at least primarily abstinence. Then of course we need make sure that teens get the values along with the facts, and always give parents the option to opt their kids out.
If we really want to do what's best for teens, we should figure out what is significant about the programs that are currently most successful at compelling teens to alter their behavior, and implement those elements in a program that promotes exclusively or at least primarily abstinence. Then of course we need make sure that teens get the values along with the facts, and always give parents the option to opt their kids out.
We already TRIED programs that promote 'exclusively abstinence' and they DID NOT work.
They may have managed to inculcate some of their 'values' (like girls who have sex are 'dirty' and when girls are raped it's their own fault for tempting boys) but they did NOT prevent teens from having sex, they did NOT prevent the further spread of STD's and they did NOT prevent pregnancy.
"Insanity: the belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing." -Albert Einstein.
We already TRIED programs that promote 'exclusively abstinence' and they DID NOT work.
If no sex ed programs really have a significant effect, then perhaps the thing to do is drop them altogether, rather than continue indoctrinating teens with either reasonable values or the religion of free "love" for all.
either reasonable values or the religion of free "love" for all.
This certainly makes it clear that you view the entire discussion only in the extremes. Your 'reasonable values' are that sex is only appropriate in marriage for the purpose of having children and that people who have sex before marriage are 'damaged' and your ASSUMPTION is that the only alternative is indiscriminate promiscuity.
Comprehensive sex education does not promote "free love for all". I have to wonder though, have you ever considered that the opposite for "free love for all" is "paying for your pleasures" with the "burden" of marriage. If you have to use restrictions on sex to force people into marriage, you might want to consider just what it is about the institution as it is currently formulated that makes marriage something people are so reluctant to get involved with.
Or maybe, just maybe we should consider the fact that rates of teen sexual activity have remained stable for the entire period of time we have been collecting such data, and the only things that vary are the rates of pregnancy and STIs. In fact, we should look at those rates and compare them to rates of consensual teen sexual activity across cultures and see if there actually are any cultures in which teens engage in sex less often than they do here (based on what I know of a few indigenous cultures, this is not the case... teens have sex at roughly the same rate everywhere and they always have).
With the above information, it should be clear that teen sexual activity is normal, to be expected, and effectively unavoidable (on a population level) based on human nature. Then, we should do what we can to give them the information they need so that when they have sex (because ultimately, most of them will) they are able to avoid the negative consequences as easily as possible. That means that they should have comprehensive (no quotations necessary) sex/relationship education... not moralizing about what they should choose, or pressure to adhere to an unrealistic standard of behavior. We should do that anyway, because we have a proverbial metric assload of evidence showing that such an approach is more effective in reducing teen pregnancy and STIs, and proven results are what's important.
But that would just be the most logical way of approaching the problem. Why the hell are you even disputing this? It's fucking obvious. I hate to say it, but if it isn't obvious to you, you've got some serious problems with cognitive processing (at risk of getting a warning from the mods, that translates to "you're retarded").
With the above information, it should be clear that teen sexual activity is normal, to be expected, and effectively unavoidable (on a population level) based on human nature.
And yet this will not be convincing to one operating from 'faith', because the entire PURPOSE of some religions is to stigmatize and stamp out 'human nature' on the premise that all aspects of unmoderated 'human nature' are assumed to be inherently 'corrupt'. So if the majority of people just naturally WANT to do something, if the majority of people have biological drives IMPELLING them to a popular behavior, then the 'righteous' have a responsibility to prevent them from being human. The most popular way to do this is shaming, blaming and draconian punishments which allow the 'moral' to indulge themselves with sadism while continuing to assure themselves they are more virtuous than everyone else.
It's really weird to me that they can't grasp that their taste for inflicting pain and gloating over their victims' pain is far more perverse than normal everyday sexual 'immorality' could ever be.
Or maybe, just maybe we should consider the fact that rates of teen sexual activity have remained stable for the entire period of time we have been collecting such data
The percentage of teens (9th-12th grade) who've had sexual intercourse dropped from 54% in 1991 to 47% in 2005. That's a significant change - certainly far from "stable." And I'm sure not even the 2005 number represents a historic low. There's still a lot of room to improve, to be sure, but no reason to think it can't - with the possible exception of the influence of sex ed programs that blatantly push teens the other way.
Then, we should do what we can to give them the information they need so that when they have sex (because ultimately, most of them will) they are able to avoid the negative consequences as easily as possible.
But if that doesn't happen until they get married, they won't need it until then, and in most cases not at all, because STIs won't be a concern and a woman can get whatever other information she thinks she needs from her doctor or the health department. If they're going to have sex before marriage, then you can't help them much, anyway. They certainly cannot "avoid the negative consequences...easily", or even with difficulty.
That means that they should have comprehensive (no quotations necessary) sex/relationship education... not moralizing about what they should choose, or pressure to adhere to an unrealistic standard of behavior.
It's not unrealistic, as a majority of teens have proven.
And where did you get those figures from? Sources, please (even if you are referencing one of mine, so I can go back and look at it), and tell me why there was a reduction. Regardless, in both years roughly half of teens had sex. Seriously, that narrow margin is not as significant as you think it is, and it shows that it is normal for teens to be either celibate or sexually active. It's certainly a far cry from being anywhere near your unrealistic standard of "most don't have sex until they get married," which these days would mean they'd stay celibate into their mid-to-late twenties. Find me any culture ever in which celibacy has been the norm for both sexes until that age.
If they're going to have sex before marriage, then you can't help them much, anyway. They certainly cannot "avoid the negative consequences...easily", or even with difficulty.
1. Yes, we can. Why the hell do you want to give up on teens who have chosen to have sex? Why do you treat them as lost causes? That's roughly half of the teenage population. Hell, wasn't it around 80% of the population that will have sex before marriage? You don't think that 80% of the population could benefit from sex education? You think people should just be left to their own devices to look this stuff up on the internet or learn it through trial and error? Yeah, I'm sure that would do wonders to reduce the rate of STIs and unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, which is supposedly the goal. Seriously, haven't you considered that your way of doing things would result in a higher abortion rate? Isn't that shit kind of important to you?
2. Yes, they can. Barrier methods combined with hormonal contraception, regular testing, and open/honest communication with your chosen sexual partner is very effective at reducing the risks of contracting an STI. Again... loads of evidence to support my side. Yeah, using a condom and having sex is riskier than not having intercourse at all, but that's not the fucking point (pardon the pun). You have to learn to stop beating a dead horse, when it comes to pushing abstinence as the best option, because it simply isn't what most people will choose. Having the information from sex ed will help those who choose to have sex as teens (~50%) and those who have sex before marriage (~80%) AND those who have sex within marriage (damn near everyone).
There is no good reason to be so against sex education. If parents are so worried about teaching values, and you think those values need to be learned before talking about sex... THEN TEACH YOUR OWN KIDS THE VALUES YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE DURING THE 13-14 YEARS PRIOR TO HIGH SCHOOL. Then, learn to cut the damn umbilical cord, because they're going to start making decisions you may or may not agree with without consulting your opinion. And you can still opt them out of the sex ed class that is taught because it will be useful for most everyone else.
And where did you get those figures from?
See page 2 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/21/AR200707...
and tell me why there was a reduction
According to the article, "rising fears about sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS; changing social mores about sexual behavior; and other factors."
It's certainly a far cry from being anywhere near your unrealistic standard of "most don't have sex until they get married," which these days would mean they'd stay celibate into their mid-to-late twenties.
But even if you don't expect everyone to live up to that standard, you owe it to them and everyone else involved to at least tell them that that's the only way we're going to put a serious dent in the number of people affected by STIs and out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
Why the hell do you want to give up on teens who have chosen to have sex? Why do you treat them as lost causes?
I'm not giving up on them. I just want to tell them the truth up front, not lies like, "It's okay to have sex as long as you take these precautions," which is essentially the message they get from "comprehensive" sex ed programs.
You don't think that 80% of the population could benefit from sex education?
I don't believe it's knowledge of sex that they're lacking, unless you think there's a great number of them who are doing things that they erroneously think won't result in pregnancy or the transmission of an STI, in which case they would be equally well served by a program that promotes only abstinence.
Barrier methods combined with hormonal contraception, regular testing, and open/honest communication with your chosen sexual partner is very effective at reducing the risks of contracting an STI.
It's that kind of wishful thinking that puts commercials for drugs to deal with Herpes symptoms on prime time TV. Listen to what you're saying. You're actually suggesting that "regular testing" should accompany activity that you consider "normal" and which you think should be accepted by society. LOL! While condoms are somewhat effective at preventing the transmission of HIV, they are much less effective at preventing other types of STIs. For those, all anyone will say is that they "reduce the risk," which could mean just about anything. This is why sex ed programs some time ago quit using the term "safe sex" and will now only claim you can have "safer" sex. See the links below. (And if you don't like to read sites like chastity.com, just refer to the studies and articles referred to in the footnotes on which the article is based.)
http://www.medinstitute.org/public/126.cfm
http://www.chastity.com/chastity-qa/stds/prevention/wont-safe-sex-protec...
According to the article, "rising fears about sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS; changing social mores about sexual behavior; and other factors."
Maybe if you engineer a sexually-transmitted virus that is even scarier than AIDS, you might be able to reduce the teen-sex rate even further.
But even if you don't expect everyone to live up to that standard, you owe it to them and everyone else involved to at least tell them that that's the only way we're going to put a serious dent in the number of people affected by STIs and out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
We owe it to tell them falsehoods? Sorry, but we don't do things the abstinence-only way here.
I'm not giving up on them. I just want to tell them the truth up front, not lies like, "It's okay to have sex as long as you take these precautions," which is essentially the message they get from "comprehensive" sex ed programs.
So you want to tell them, "It's okay to have sex as long as you're married," which is essentially the message they get from "abstinence-only" sex ed programs?
I don't believe it's knowledge of sex that they're lacking, unless you think there's a great number of them who are doing things that they erroneously think won't result in pregnancy or the transmission of an STI, in which case they would be equally well served by a program that promotes only abstinence.
Fortunately, what we think is that a lot of people who don't receive sex ed, or receive ab-only sex ed, don't know how to mitigate the risks of sexual activity. So no, they would be served very poorly by a program that promotes only abstinence.
It's that kind of wishful thinking that puts commercials for drugs to deal with Herpes symptoms on prime time TV. Listen to what you're saying. You're actually suggesting that "regular testing" should accompany activity that you consider "normal" and which you think should be accepted by society. LOL!
Yes, just like regular dental checkups should accompany the eating of palatable food. LOL!
While condoms are somewhat effective at preventing the transmission of HIV, they are much less effective at preventing other types of STIs. For those, all anyone will say is that they "reduce the risk," which could mean just about anything.
Apparently, to you, it means "cause massive, out-of-control orgies of depraved hedonism that will destroy society." Fortunately, most people have better reading comprehension.
This is why sex ed programs some time ago quit using the term "safe sex" and will now only claim you can have "safer" sex.
Yes, because some folks were too dumb to recognize that "safe sex" does not mean "sex without any risk whatsoever of anything bad happening" any more than "safe driving" means "driving an M1A1 tank."
Yes, just like regular dental checkups should accompany the eating of palatable food. LOL!
I have not nor would I suggest that one could or should abstain from eating.
Dental checkups and "regular testing" for STI's are hardly comparable. In the case of the former, problems found may or may not have anything to do with one's actions, like eating. Also, eating is of course always a necessity, whereas the kind of sexual activity that puts one at risk for STIs never is.
I have not nor would I suggest that one could or should abstain from eating.
But you could suggest that one could or should abstain from eating sugary or acidic foods. Isn't that the only hope we have of ending the epidemic of tooth decay?
Dental checkups and "regular testing" for STI's are hardly comparable. In the case of the former, problems found may or may not have anything to do with one's actions, like eating.
Oh? So you're saying that you could be eating teeth-friendly foods, and brushing and flossing properly, and then BAM! Cavities everywhere? What is it, the anti-tooth fairy comes around at night and secretly feeds you pastries or something?
Also, eating is of course always a necessity, whereas the kind of sexual activity that puts one at risk for STIs never is.
Sexual activity that does not pose a risk of transmitting STIs (like mutual masturbation) also tends not to be very conducive to reproduction. And if you think that continuing the human race is not a necessity, then you're better off talking with these guys.
Thanks for the source. Seems to me that teens are choosing to have less sex because they are better educated about the risks involved. That's fine and dandy, and also doesn't have anything to do with your "abstinence until marriage" agenda.
But even if you don't expect everyone to live up to that standard, you owe it to them and everyone else involved to at least tell them that that's the only way we're going to put a serious dent in the number of people affected by STIs and out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
Except, that isn't true, as we've already gone over, like, dozens of times already in this thread. Did you even read the Guttmacher article about how California achieved the most drastic decrease in percentage of teen pregnancies ever? Why the hell are you even debating this?
"It's okay to have sex as long as you take these precautions,"
That was never the message I've seen given at comprehensive sex-ed workshops and classes. I always got, "Abstaining from sexual activity is the only 100% protection. If you choose to engage in sex, here are the rates of efficacy for these different barriers and contraceptives." Teens do need to have this kind of information up-front, because otherwise they spread rumors around and believe a lot of sex urban-legends. Then kids don't know what to believe.
For instance, when I moved from Alabama to California for high school, I'd had no sex ed. When one of my new CA friends told me about condoms, I thought it was weird, and I straight up thought she was lying when she told me about the birth control pill. I thought she had been scammed by some quack doctor. It wasn't until I talked with another friend who was taking it for acne that I learned it wasn't fake. So, I relied on my better-educated friends to inform me, but it would have been better if I had gotten my information from a more reliable source... like a teacher (since my parents didn't talk to me about this stuff, and I didn't want to talk to them about it). Fortunately, I was celibate by popular demand anyway, otherwise I might have made some very poorly-informed decisions.
Sex is a normal activity (as normal as not having sex). Sex also has physical risks (not having sex has no physical risks). If you choose to engage, it is responsible to do everything in your power to reduce those risks. So, we should tell people what "everything in your power" is. Really, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If you do A, then you should do B. If you don't want to deal with B, don't do A.
Seems to me that teens are choosing to have less sex because they are better educated about the risks involved.
Actually, from the article I linked to it sounds as if that reason would take third place behind fears about HIV/AIDS and changing social mores.
That's fine and dandy, and also doesn't have anything to do with your "abstinence until marriage" agenda.
Changing social mores.
Did you even read the Guttmacher article about how California achieved the most drastic decrease in percentage of teen pregnancies ever? Why the hell are you even debating this?
Because I said "STIs and out-of-wedlock pregnancies," and the Guttmacher report you linked to says nothing about STIs. In fact, while I trust Guttmacher's numbers, they do have an agenda, and are careful about which statistics they'll gather, or at least talk about much. For example, they'll talk about a decline in teen pregnancy rates, because those numbers look good. But they don't talk much about STI rates, except to occasionally drop a hint like, "Every year, roughly nine million new sexually transmitted infections (STIs) occur among teens and young adults in the United States." While that is consistent with the information I've been able to gather which says that STI rates in this country are flat at best, Guttmacher ignores that fact and instead uses such statements only to support their agenda. For example, the sentence quoted above is immediately followed by, "Compared with rates among teens in Canada and Western Europe, rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia among U.S. teens are extremely high."
Even the teen pregnancy picture in California isn't as rosy as you paint it. The article states that they had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation in 1992, the starting point of the comparison. Naturally, when you're the worst, you have the most room to improve. The article compares California to the 16 states in the South, and suggests that they didn't do nearly as well as California because their teen pregnancy rates didn't improve by as great a percentage as California's did. While that may be true, that's not the only way you can read these statistics. When you look at where teen pregnancy rates were actually at in 2005, California was only average in comparison to the southern states (6 of which had lower rates of teen pregnancy than California, 7 of which had higher rates and 3 of which were about the same). Perhaps a comparison involving a state with less extreme teen pregnancy rates to begin with would be more convincing.
Back to the STIs, though. The number of high school students who've had sex at least once declined from 54.1% in 1991 to 46.8% in 2005. During that time, the teen pregnancy rate dropped significantly. Since only about 14% of the decline can be attributed to fewer teens having sex, that means that the rest must be due to better use of contraceptives. However, since it appears that STI rates were at best level during that period - rather than declining as one would expect to result from a combination of less sexual activity and greater use of contraceptives - it appears that those contraceptives did little to nothing to stop the spread of STIs. Again, it's very difficult to find good statistics. I've included links below to some (1st link), but for others, such as Herpes, no one dares to paint an accurate picture, though some are sounding the alarm (2nd link). In fact, Herpes is a tremendous concern, since already 1 in 5 adults have it, condoms are only 40-50% effective in preventing its spread (3rd link), and having it increases the likelihood of contracting a more serious disease like HIV/AIDS.
http://www.avert.org/std-statistics-america.htm
http://preventdisease.com/news/articles/herpes_explode_by_2025.shtml
http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/472427_2
If you choose to engage, it is responsible to do everything in your power to reduce those risks. So, we should tell people what "everything in your power" is.
And isn't.
Yes, and HOW does someone become so afraid of HIV/AIDS that they change their sexual behavior to reduce risk of contracting it? Through education about what HIV is and how it is transmitted. That sex-education impacts the acceptance of unprotected sex by society in general, and it becomes more normal and accepted for men to use condoms or for people to choose less risky sexual activities. "Changing social mores" does not mean "extra-marital sex is frowned upon more." In fact, "changing social mores," is so unspecific, it could mean just about anything, and is therefore useless as a descriptor.
You're trying to downplay the strategy CA used to bring down its highest-in-the-country pregnancy rate to an average one just because you don't like the way some of the cross-state statistics were compared. The fact of the matter is that what CA did actually worked to solve the problem they were trying to address. Is there room for more improvement? Hell yeah, and we should look to the states with the lowest teen pregnancy rates and copy what they are doing to bring other states' stats down even more. And when you look at those states, they are the ones that have a culture supporting comprehensive sex ed.
When it comes to STIs, we all know that prescription contraceptives do not protect against them. The problem is a male unwillingness to insist on wearing condoms, even when the woman is on birth control, and a female unwillingness to insist on men using condoms even when they claim that they are disease-free. You know how these problems could be solved? More comprehensive sex ed that focuses on the importance of disease-prevention and how to say yes and no to different sexual behaviors.
You aren't going to stop people from having multiple sexual partners during the course of their lifetime. It just isn't going to happen, so... comprehensive sex ed is important for increasing the overall quality of public sexual health. There's no debating this. The fact that you are shows that you don't have your priorities straight.
Over-and-out.
If they're going to have sex before marriage, then you can't help them much, anyway. They certainly cannot "avoid the negative consequences...easily", or even with difficulty.
Why not? And what about those of us who have been the "they" in this equation who did? And what about those who followed what your rules seem to be -- get married first, then have sex, it all takes care of itself, is how I understand them -- and didn't?
Have you ever considered that what we learn as teens doesn't just serve us when we're teens? I learned to drive at 16, but that doesn't mean that everything I learned in driver's ed. I used right away--I never even saw a roundabout until I was in my mid-20's, for example. (What can I say? I learned to drive in a pretty rural area.)
The same applies to sex ed. What we teach teens isn't just useful to them when they're teens. They need to know about contraception and STD prevention when they're adults. They need to know about contraception when they're adults and married. It's teaching teens skills that they'll need to use for a lifetime.
And not everyone shares your view that teens have sex is a terrible, horrible, awful problem that must! be! stopped! I'd agree that teens delaying sex until they're ready is a good idea; however, what is right for one person is not necessarily what's right for another.
Given your track record of seeing things only as binary choices, as black and white, I don't expect you to understand that.
What we teach teens isn't just useful to them when they're teens. They need to know about contraception and STD prevention when they're adults. They need to know about contraception when they're adults and married.
My wife and I have never needed to be concerned about such things, and we know several couples who would say the same.
I fail to see why it would be necessary that you, your wife or those other couples be IGNORANT about contraceptives. There isn't anything about knowing that they exist that requires you or anyone else to use them, but instead that knowledge allows you to make an INFORMED choice to reject them. Abstinence Education promotes censoring knowledge and leaving children in ignorance about facts which MIGHT be useful to them in the future.
Bully for you. Not everyone can support a large family, nor does everyone believe in celibacy within marriage as the way to control family size. My point still stands: even if a teen doesn't use information on contraception right away, s/he will still need that information as adults.
The point being that not everyone shares your value system, and expecting schools to conform to your particular morals--especially given that 95% of people will have sex before marriage, and that 98% of women will use some form of contraception--is unreasonable in the real world.
If any sex education program is going to be consistent what what is objectively right, it ought to promote abstinence over sexual activity.
While you might be able to say technically that "comprehensive" sex education programs encourage both abstinence and "safer" sex, in no way shape or form could you claim that they promote them equally.
In other words, if any sex education program is going to be consistent with what Kevin thinks is objectively right, it ought to actually be abstinence-only.
If the researcher is objective and has no agenda beyond reducing pregnancy and STI rates, they're going to consider a program that produces more tallies on the abstinence side than the non-abstinence side more successful than one that produces more tallies on the non-abstinence side, even if in both cases all those on the non-abstinence side used contraceptive methods perfectly.
If the agenda is "reducing pregnancy and STI rates" then the appropriate way to measure effectiveness rates is to tally resulting pregnancies and STI rates. If 'abstinence education' results in MORE pregnancy and STI's than comprehensive, then it is NOT EFFECTIVE in promoting abstinence and insisting that ignorance is an effective bar to sex is a FAILED IDEA. The purposes of 'comprehensive sex education' do not include inculcating children with minority religious codes or preventing them from being 'contaminated' by sex and therefore measuring virginity is irrelevant.
Your argument is similar to insisting that the schools focus their nutrition information on stigmitizing everybody who's not a vegetarian because a minority believe it to be 'objective truth' that eating meat is 'morally wrong'.
I understand these beliefs are part of your religious tradition, and you certainly have a right to those beliefs, however warped and unhealthy they may seem to other people, but it is totally inappropriate to attempt to use public schoolss to inculcate the OCD obsession with 'purity' and its concurrent contempt for women in other people's children.
To find fault with me for pointing it out is like complaining that I insist that the sum and 2 and 2 is 4.
But you did not point out that 2 and 2 is 4 -- instead you insist that 'good girls' don't do math.
and for each person there is a right choice and a wrong choice, and someone goes public with their choice but is unable or unwilling to defend it as the right choice (which has to mean at least that they saw it as better for themselves than the other choice), then how can you say that my suggesting that they made the wrong choice is "applying your personal moral agenda" to them?
Your suggesting they made the 'wrong choice' is 'applying your personal moral agenda' because:
1. There are more than two 'right choices'. Limiting the choices to virginity or married parenthood, is 'applying your personal moral agenda' because that is a minority view.
2. People who go public about a choice with which you disagree are not obligated to defend it to you, because no one, including God, has appointed you their judge.
As a woman who was sexually active in HS at almost 16 and being LUCKY to have had the information that I needed to make the RIGHT CHOICE FOR ME, I was very lucky to have the information that I needed to NOT become another teen pregnancy statistic, which is what abstinence education can insure for some teens. I had sex and got to make all of my dreams come true because I was able to protect myself from teen pregnancy, and unwanted pregnancy in adulthood. It is clear that you want teen girls and women to be controlled with promises of sex in marriage, and to be controlled in marriage by not being able to control pregnancy as an adult. That is sooo 1950's. Women today do NOT need to put having sex on hold in their teens, and they never did either. Before women were able to purchase birth control, and Roe V Wade, teens who were pregnant were treated like criminal bad girls, sent away, and had their babies taken away to be adopted out to people who needed a white baby because a married couple couldn't have children of their own. That did the pregnant teen girls a supreme disservice, and the boy who was the father of the baby got off scot free. Things have changed signifigantly with women's rights (including the right to have sex, birth control being controlled by the woman and not a husband in a marriage) and we have the RIGHT to have sex if we want to, and our choice to have sex is a VALID ONE and who the heck are YOU to tell us otherwise?
ALSO: I have been bisexual since I can remember; even as a teen I was attracted simultaneously to both sexes. It was not confusion, it was a real, genuine attraction. As part of the queer community, I take extreme offense of your insinuation that people's same sex attractions are confusion, just because you subscribe to the neat boy and girl only fantasy. They are not. It is not a black and white world, there are shades of gray and they are real hues. Your minimizing these very real attractions or outright ignorance of them speaks to how sheltered you are and the lies that YOU have been told that you hold as truth as an adult who should know better. Perhaps you need and education before you try to come here and on any other prochoice sites and try to convince us otherwise. We are hip to your male control and dominance fantasies, and we live in the REAL WORLD.
I am very proud of teens today, they WANT that information and I give kudos to Heather Corinna for her work with teens and her website, which contains real, factual information. Max, I want to thank you for your work too. We can win against the 20% of ignoramuses like Kevin, by demanding that teens get all of this information, and trust that it is THEIR CHOICE of what they do with it. It is a FACT that Comprehensive Sex Education saves teens from disease and pregnancy. To not give it to teens is irresponsible when diseases like Aids can kill, and pregnacy can throw a teen's life off kilter. ( I think that if a teen has sex and hadn't been given comprehensive sex education but AB only and contracts a disease or gets pregnant, they should be able to sue their state!) The whole basis for someone like Kevin's thinking is that girls should have consequences to their wrong actions of having sex unmarried, and that teen girls who become pregnant should go back to the days of being forced to continue their pregnancies and then having their babies stolen and then being shamed for life. Or, keeping the baby and forced to a life of povery and payment of consequence for her action in the form of a baby that she did not want. We say NO to that! Babies should be wanted! We say no to ignorance! We say NO to girls taking all of the heat and the consequences for a shared act! We say YES to responsible sex and being in control of our sexuality and educated about it!
~Thank you Jan, very smart.~
I just wanted to thank you for writing this article... I completley agree that schools need to teach teens about contraceptive use. It is important that teens learn how to protect themselves agaisnt infections and unintended pregnancies. I am actually currently writting a persuassive essay for a class I am in about how schools should teach comprehensive education instead of the abstinence-only programs most are teaching. Most of the people in the high school I went to were sexually active and had gotten pregnant or gotten someone pregant by the age of 17. I ended up pregnant at sixteen, and then seventeen but miscarried both times, then got pregnant again at 18 and gave birth that time... I believe that if we had been taught differently in school then many of the pregnancies would not have occured... so thanks for sticking to what you believe about this subject!!! :)
