lpetrich

Sabine Grant:
However the reality is that we, as parents, are accountable for what ethics we raise our children with.
I do not entrust the government to place what I consider ethical or non ethical as part of a school curriculum because of the notion of " political correctness".

Even a right-wing-Catholic government, O Sabine?

Under the Clinton administration, there was a big push for the protected sex curriculum and no credibility given to presenting the notion of abstinence.

I wonder which planet SG had been living on during the Clinton Administration.

When Joycelyn Elders proposed serious discussion of masturbation in sex-education classes, the Religious Right howled and Clinton backed down in a sniveling, cowardly fashion.

Abortion has fallen for the same political correctness and scientific data is not always provided to a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.

As if abortion is some sort of evil conspiracy.

We are even confused as to the definition of when " does life start".

One answer is that it does not really start -- it's continuous from one's parents.

Daggah

Hey, look, it's dk spreading his woefully ignorant views on sex education yet AGAIN!

Daggah

LOL, what unmitigated bullshit! Too funny! So, dk, how do you explain the lower rates of STDs, pregnancies, and abortions in European countries where the mere suggestion of abstinence education would be properly found ridiculous and absurd?

(Not only that, but in those same liberal European countries, even teen sex itself is down...fewer teens are sexually active, and those that are become active later than American teens do.)

France's teen gonorreah (sic?) rate is 70 times lower than America's is. It isn't because of abstinence education.

galiel

There are no "facts". There are only lies, damn lies, and dk's statistical analysis.

Corwin

Actually abortion rates have started rising again slightly since school boards started adopting 'abstinance only' programs. They'd been going down for years.

Abstinance only programs are like the anti-smoking programs in schools. They're nothing more than simple indoctrination, generally using distortions and outright lies to make their point... the actual facts aren't impressive enough. They have no problem doing this.... after all... the motivation for these programs comes from the christian right, and christianity has a long history of lying to people. (Ever heard of Eubesius?)

Jamie_L

[emphasis mine]

Um, what does a ceremony and a legal document have to do with the results of a physical act? You can be unmarried and have low-risk sex and you can be married and have high-risk sex. Viruses, sperm, eggs, and the like don't care one way or the other whay your marital status is.

Jamie

Jamie_L

Latecomer to the thread, but some thoughts:

We've got two groups of kids:
Group A: Are or will soon be sexually active
Group B: Are not sexually active and will remain so

The purpose of sex education is to protect kids from the risks associated with sex

Abstinence-only education tries to protect kids by moving kids from Group A to Group B.

A comprehensive sex ed class tries to move kids from Group A to Group B, but also presents risk-reduction options to kids that remain in Group A.

So, comprehensive sex ed attempts to protect the same group of kids that abstinence-only education seeks to protect, but also seeks to protect an additional group. Meaning comprehensive sex ed offers protection to more kids.

If we're honest with ourselves, we know there will always be kids in Group A. Why should we abandon them?

Jamie

Derec

The role of school is not to make group A teenagers give up sexuality and move to the monastry-type group B. The role of school is to provie factual information free of ideological spin. Unfortunately, in America sex is still viewed as something bad, that should be avoided.
But what is wrong with late teens or early twens having sexual relations as long as they do it responsibly. We as a society should finally give up the silly, Christianty induced, notion that virginity is somehow superior to nonvirginity.

Jamie_L

I probably used a poor word choice. Comprehensive sex ed should give kids complete information so that they can protect themselves, either by moving from Group A to Group B or by taking responsible precautions, as they see fit.

In the previous post, I was gearing the arguement towards those who focus on abstinance-only sex ed. The stated purpose is that abstinance is the only way to protect kids from the risks associated with sex. The point I was trying to get at is that you protect more kids by teaching all the information rather than only part of it. Thus, abstinance-only sex ed fails in its own supposed goals.

Exactly. However, responsible sex must include awareness of the risks involved - and there are risks. These risks are present regardless of age and marital status. They include primarily disease and unwanted pregnancy. And, although there is nothing wrong with sex, it does happen to be true that abstinance reduces all these risks to zero. So, it is appropriate to teach kids that if they want to have zero sexual risk, the only way is to have zero sex. If they want to have sex, then they must be taught how to minimize the risk, but also taught that the risk will not be zero. That's the responsible thing to teach.

Certainly virginity is not morally superior to nonvirginity. However, virginity does happen to be a superior method for avoiding STDs and pregnancy than nonvirginity.

Jamie

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

lpetrich

Jamie_L, what do you think that school systems should teach about masturbation and similar acts that have no chance of causing pregnancy and little or no chance of spreading disease?

My own position is that they are ideal as "starter" acts, what one can do until one decides that one is ready to "go all the way".

And perhaps sex education can include instruction on how to have great orgasms without losing one's virginity.