Does sexual education have any result?

[RAMOSS]

Frankly, the problem is more one of culture and behavioral expectations than anything else.

You can have all the "abstinence only" education in the world, and it's ultimately going to be a lost cause in an environment where teens are constantly being bombarded with hyper-sexualized messages in media, and from their peer group, undermining it. That problem's only been exacerbated by overly permissive parenting.

Long story short, you put a horny young man and woman together unsupervised, something's eventually going to happen. You throw alcohol and other perception altering substances into the mix, you virtually guarantee it.

Parents are apparently okay with that - because, really, the unspoken link between dating and teenage "sexploration" is so deeply ingrained in our culture that most people take it as given, regardless of their latent religiosity - so the problem remains.

Basically all of the deeply religious homeschooling families I knew growing up, by way of contrast, either didn't allow dating before a certain age, or made sure it only took place under controlled circumstances, with a chaperone present, for that exact reason.

Old fashioned? Sure.

However, I never heard of any STDs or unwanted pregnancies either. :shrug:

that's because it was all Hush Hush.

 

[Gathomas88]

that's because it was all Hush Hush.

I can say with some degree of certainty that the vast, vast majority of children raised in the manner I described couldn't have lost their virginities even if they wanted to. The opportunity simply wasn't there.

"Kids will be kids" is nothing but an excuse.

 

[Somerville]

I can say with some degree of certainty that the vast, vast majority of children raised in the manner I described couldn't have lost their virginities even if they wanted to. The opportunity simply wasn't there.

"Kids will be kids" is nothing but an excuse.

Are you really claiming that none of those deeply religious homeschooled kids was never out of sight of their parents from the day they were born until they were 18 years old?

 

[Gathomas88]

Are you really claiming that none of those deeply religious homeschooled kids was never out of sight of their parents from the day they were born until they were 18 years old?

Under the kinds of circumstances that could actually result in sex?

Generally speaking, no.

 

[Hard Truth]

I can say with some degree of certainty that the vast, vast majority of children raised in the manner I described couldn't have lost their virginities even if they wanted to. The opportunity simply wasn't there.

"Kids will be kids" is nothing but an excuse.

Kids who can't do a bit of exploring while in high school tend to go a bit nuts when they leave home and/or go to college. I have known a few that have been through that. That is why Catholic girls used to have a reputation for being so wild in college.

 

[Gathomas88]

Kids who can't do a bit of exploring while in high school tend to go a bit nuts when they leave home and/or go to college. I have known a few that have been through that. That is why Catholic girls used to have a reputation for being so wild in college.

Some will, and some won't. You teach them right from wrong early, and hope for the best once they've been turned loose. :shrug:

All things being equal, however, I'd much rather have the "loose cannons" of the bunch go off in college than in HighSchool. The maturity levels involved tend to be a bit greater, if nothing else.

 

[CLAX1911]

Kids who can't do a bit of exploring while in high school tend to go a bit nuts when they leave home and/or go to college. I have known a few that have been through that. That is why Catholic girls used to have a reputation for being so wild in college.

Yeah they tend to hate religion in their adulthood.

 

[3step]

Are you really claiming that none of those deeply religious homeschooled kids was never out of sight of their parents from the day they were born until they were 18 years old?

This case of chlamydia outbreak shows that huge percent of students know nothing about the rules of hygiene and the risk of infection of the reproductive system. Why do you bring religion?

 

[AGENT J]

Abstinence-Only Texas High School Hit By Chlamydia Outbreak; 1 In 15 Students Affected

Despite the fact that sexual education begins at an early age it can not prevent such incidents. Students gain much more information from pornsites and personal experience. In my opinion, sex education should not emphasize abstinence but should be so effective and interesting that students even had no desire to test porn filth from the screen on themselves.

besides just basic common sense . . . .

its been proven time and time again "abstinence only" sex ed is a waste of time and money. Its totally mentally inane if the goal is true education, less disease and less unwanted pregnancy.

Real comprehensive sex ed along with access to forms of BC does work however.

 

[Somerville]

This case of chlamydia outbreak shows that huge percent of students know nothing about the rules of hygiene and the risk of infection of the reproductive system. Why do you bring religion?

See post #48

 

[Aunt Spiker]

This case of chlamydia outbreak shows that huge percent of students know nothing about the rules of hygiene and the risk of infection of the reproductive system. Why do you bring religion?

Good point - 'education' just means nothing. What are we teaching? Some biology basics? [for the record - I had to look up what Chlamydia was]

Chlamydia symptoms in women

Abnormal vaginal discharge that may have an odor
Bleeding between periods
Painful periods
Abdominal pain with fever
Pain when having sex
Itching or burning in or around the vagina
Pain when urinating

So women can have it - not really know what it is - never get treated - and never feel there's anything notable to worry about. The odds of someone having it at any point and not knowing are quite high. Hmm - I wonder what hte estimated rate of infection is (vs the reported rates of infection that come from diagnosis).

Maybe it really means that teens are more comfortable or upfront with their parents / willing ot get help - because hell knows I don't ever think of going to the doc for minor things like the occasional vag irritation. The only thing from the above list that would even catch my attention RE concern is fever and abdominal pain - and even then, it would have to be pretty persistent and severe for me to go to a doctor for it.

 

[Ryan5]

Thread title should be worded as:


"75%+ Hispanic/Amerindian school/Region" because that's the truth.



In typical fashion the left will never mention that key fact or discuss its cultural implications because the truth is the Left could care less about minority issues they simply treat them as a voter plantation never once truly fixing their communities issues or even discussing them.

 

[3step]

Thread title should be worded as:


"75%+ Hispanic/Amerindian school/Region" because that's the truth.



In typical fashion the left will never mention that key fact or discuss its cultural implications because the truth is the Left could care less about minority issues they simply treat them as a voter plantation never once truly fixing their communities issues or even discussing them.

75% of white population is too low or too much for you to believe this issue is not a matter of race?

 

[Lursa]

the headline is false... it's not "abstinence-only" sex education.

that said, what do you propose to make sex ed so interesting that they won't look to " test porn filth"?... and at what age are we to instruct our children that abstaining from sex is wrong?

For God's sake, they dont teach details about having sex and they dont 'romanticize' it. It's more like discussing the mechanics and the pictures of the people are like wireframes, outlines. " And they dont go into lots of positions, just enough so that kids know enough to protect themselves and know 'what is sex and what isnt.' People lie to kids all the time, just to get sex, like telling them doing it doggie-style cant get them pregnant. Sad, but kids need to know 'facts.'

THe pictures of the internal organs are more realistic, that's biology. They need to FACTS about diseases, not fluff, not partial explanations.

They dont 'promote' having sex, they discuss, like I said, the realities, the mechanics and consequences. Nothing I ever saw or heard in sex ed ever made me want to have sex, lol. Nothing appealing or 'sexy' about it.

We got so see video of live births...yeah...that was a total turnoff! LOL seriously. We got to see pics of diseased sexual organs...turnoff!

We also had an assignment where we were paired with another classmate as a couple and given a budget and told we had 1 infant. Now: find an apt, pay the rent, pay your bills, what jobs can you get that will pay the bills, how much time does it take, everyday, to care for infant, when do you have time to hang with your friends (where's the baby?), watch TV, do you have a washer and drier or are you spending half your life at the laundromat, etc etc etc. It took all semester and was very effective.

 

[Lursa]

Mandatory sex education in public schools is a very controversial and difficult subject. Here in Ontario, Canada, the government is currently adamant that they will institute a new sex education program, beginning in September, that starts with students in grade one and progresses through elementary school. It begins in grade one with anatomical identification of sexual organs ~snip.

If I understood your post correctly, this is what would be covered in the earliest yrs? If so, while I find it very sad, I believe the reason is that disgustingly, children this young are often molested and in order to protect them, so that they know the difference between 'good touching' and 'bad touching', they need to be able to identify sexual areas. It's appalling IMO but adult authority figures, or even older kids, tell little ones 'it's ok' and they submit.

I very seriously doubt that the information is sexualized however, more just anatomy I would hope.

 

[Lursa]

I don't disagree that ignorance is not an answer. However, why not send materials home to parents and let them review them and deliver them and/or share reading them with their children in the comfort and security of their homes and in an environment that's not threatening or intimidating to the child?

Surely, if there's a societal goal and benefit to be derived, the school does not have to be the only place where that program may be delivered. In other words, help parents don't replace them.

Wouldnt that assume a consensus could be achieved by what's provided in the curriculum?

(And parents know they need to discuss sex with their kids. When, where, how, what....every parent is different. Handing them material significantly different from what they belief or understand will not get them to educate their kids.)

If so, that would never happen. Just look at the religious extremists here...or those who 100% believe that the 'govt' should stay out of their 'family business?' Or someone that wanted to promote 'free love'?

One hopes that state and community level school boards can put together comprehensive, factual, unbiased sex ed curricula. I suppose that's not 100% possible but IMO it should be the goal.

Re: where else kids will get 'factual' information....where? Not a church. And what if parents arent affiliated with any organizations at all? Fewer unwanted pregnancies and the damage they do to the potentials of young people, and less STDs are something that affects ALL society deeply.

 

[Lursa]

Basically all of the deeply religious homeschooling families I knew growing up, by way of contrast, either didn't allow dating before a certain age, or made sure it only took place under controlled circumstances, with a chaperone present, for that exact reason.

Old fashioned? Sure.

However, I never heard of any STDs or unwanted pregnancies either. :shrug:

I did. I grew up in the church, youth fellowship group, strict parents, etc.

And saw it several times.

I know people that home school now...know of 2 pregnancies (a few yrs ago now) and several who's teens had sex...as this was a point of family contention and worried parents chat.

Nobody's discussing the STDs...interesting that you were informed @_@

So anecdotal isnt going to work here. Repression fixes nothing.

 

[Lursa]

I can say with some degree of certainty that the vast, vast majority of children raised in the manner I described couldn't have lost their virginities even if they wanted to. The opportunity simply wasn't there.

"Kids will be kids" is nothing but an excuse.

Sounds like a great life!

 

[Lursa]

Kids who can't do a bit of exploring while in high school tend to go a bit nuts when they leave home and/or go to college. I have known a few that have been through that. That is why Catholic girls used to have a reputation for being so wild in college.

Me too...I knew several like that. Esp. regarding drinking, since it was legal for 18 yrs old in NJ but 21 in most of the country at the time.

 

[Lursa]

Thread title should be worded as:


"75%+ Hispanic/Amerindian school/Region" because that's the truth.



In typical fashion the left will never mention that key fact or discuss its cultural implications because the truth is the Left could care less about minority issues they simply treat them as a voter plantation never once truly fixing their communities issues or even discussing them.

LOLOLOL

You didnt grow up in the metro NYC area where "Italians" and "Irish" Catholics attempted to 'rule' similarly and also to to raise their children similarly to Hispanic Catholics. Very mainstream.

 

[Gathomas88]

I did. I grew up in the church, youth fellowship group, strict parents, etc.

And saw it several times.

I know people that home school now...know of 2 pregnancies (a few yrs ago now) and several who's teens had sex...as this was a point of family contention and worried parents chat.

Nobody's discussing the STDs...interesting that you were informed @_@

So anecdotal isnt going to work here. Repression fixes nothing.

That would depend entirely upon what those families were allowing their children to get up to. I've known quite a few Homeschooling families, but none that ever had their children get in trouble while still at home.

Personally, we weren't allowed to date until at least 17, and even then, it was in a very controlled fashion. We even had a "prom" of sorts, which basically consisted of several families meeting up for dance classes for a few weeks, followed by a daylight group dance with most of the parents in attendance.

Quite frankly, anyone who can manage to finagle illicit sex out of something like that probably deserves it. :lol:

Sounds like a great life!

Yes, yes it does.

It might come as a shock, but not all of us place the inordinate amount of importance on base fornication that you seem to. :roll:

 

[CanadaJohn]

Wouldnt that assume a consensus could be achieved by what's provided in the curriculum?

(And parents know they need to discuss sex with their kids. When, where, how, what....every parent is different. Handing them material significantly different from what they belief or understand will not get them to educate their kids.)

If so, that would never happen. Just look at the religious extremists here...or those who 100% believe that the 'govt' should stay out of their 'family business?' Or someone that wanted to promote 'free love'?

One hopes that state and community level school boards can put together comprehensive, factual, unbiased sex ed curricula. I suppose that's not 100% possible but IMO it should be the goal.

Re: where else kids will get 'factual' information....where? Not a church. And what if parents arent affiliated with any organizations at all? Fewer unwanted pregnancies and the damage they do to the potentials of young people, and less STDs are something that affects ALL society deeply.

Depends on your view of parenting and the rights of individuals to raise their children as they see fit. At least as of today, there aren't parenting police who enforce a code of bylaws and regulations governing every stage of child development. But that doesn't stop educators from believing they are the true parents of children they teach and it's why many parents, regardless of their religious beliefs, resist such moves to usurp their parenting rights.

 

[Lursa]

Depends on your view of parenting and the rights of individuals to raise their children as they see fit. At least as of today, there aren't parenting police who enforce a code of bylaws and regulations governing every stage of child development. But that doesn't stop educators from believing they are the true parents of children they teach and it's why many parents, regardless of their religious beliefs, resist such moves to usurp their parenting rights.

I dont see how it's much different than the teaching of history, geo-politics and foreign relations, or the US political system, for example.

The *intent* should be to teach information, not opinion, and the curricula should reflect no bias. Of course, that's probably impossible but the goal IMO should try to do so as much as possible.

And I believe we're talking about public schools, which we all finance and we all supposedly benefit from in an educated population that does more good than harm. People uneducated in the realities and consequences of sex are a burden on society...financially and socially.

Not directed at you only, more a broader statement on the topic discussion.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I dont see how it's much different than the teaching of history, geo-politics and foreign relations, or the US political system, for example.

The *intent* should be to teach information, not opinion, and the curricula should reflect no bias. Of course, that's probably impossible but the goal IMO should try to do so as much as possible.

And I believe we're talking about public schools, which we all finance and we all supposedly benefit from in an educated population that does more good than harm. People uneducated in the realities and consequences of sex are a burden on society...financially and socially.

Not directed at you only, more a broader statement on the topic discussion.

I suppose that's reasonable if you believe the government should be deciding ever increasing control of who children are and how they should be raised.

I find your position curious considering your pro-choice opinions. You seem to be saying that once a woman determines to birth a child she has to lose her rights over that child to the discretion of the state.

 

[Lursa]

I suppose that's reasonable if you believe the government should be deciding ever increasing control of who children are and how they should be raised.

I find your position curious considering your pro-choice opinions. You seem to be saying that once a woman determines to birth a child she has to lose her rights over that child to the discretion of the state.

how does a parent lose their rights? How is a goal of 'unbiased' harmful? Parents can teach anything they want at home.

They can also send their kids to private/religious schools that teach what they want or homeschool them.

We are discussing taxpayer funded schools. If you dont want a free education designed to promote properly educated kids that benefit the overall American society, *choose* an alternative.

If you are suggesting that we allow the ignorance of teaching evolution as part of science curricula just because there are alot of parents that choose to place their faith before science, for example, that would have appalling results for the country eventually. And that fight is being continually fought even today in states like KS, TX, and SD.

I dont see how it's much different than the teaching of history, geo-politics and foreign relations, or the US political system, for example.

The *intent* should be to teach information, not opinion, and the curricula should reflect no bias. Of course, that's probably impossible but the goal IMO should try to do so as much as possible.

And I believe we're talking about public schools, which we all finance and we all supposedly benefit from in an educated population that does more good than harm. People uneducated in the realities and consequences of sex are a burden on society...financially and socially.

Not directed at you only, more a broader statement on the topic discussion.