dk

<ol type="1">[*]Sabine Gran: In the past 10 years that my children have been schooled, I have never encountered an "abstinence only" presentation as part of the Sex Ed curriculum in the Us Public School system. Both abstinence and protected sex should be presented from 5th grade and up.
The initial purpose of Sex Ed was to equip pre teens and teens with ways and means to be protected from STDs as well as HIV and unwanted pregnancies. The ethical aspect of it all belongs in the home not in the school.

dk: I’m not sure how you arrived at these conclusions but sex education can’t possible equip teenagers with protection from unwanted children and STDs. At best sex education can make teenagers aware that unmarried sex leads to STDs, abortion and unwanted children. Sex places upon teenagers obligations and consequences far beyond their comprehension and experience.
.[*]Sabine Gran: The same precautions that apply to heterosexuals (except for pregnancies) also apply to homosexuals. Only UPDATED scientific data should be presented to the students. The battle for ethics is up to the parents or legal guardians in the privacy of their home.

dk: Clearly, of all sexually active kids, lesbians are at the lowest risk, and gays are at the highest, so clearly the same precautions don’t apply. Even more inequitable are the racial, economic and cultural differences. This isn’t a one curriculum fits all scenario. The requirements of inner city black communities where drugs and unwed mothers are the norm demands special consideration. I have buddy teaching sex ed in a school of 5,000. Fully 1/4 of the enrolled students already have children or are pregnant. You yourself being a member of the government must recognize that the ethics and family values of the community bare strongly upon the relevant content of any sex education program. Whether people believe an 'abstinent' or a 'sexually active' child is criminal warps the issue. Until people are wiling to address the particulars of teenage sex, unmarried sex, marital sex and criminal sex with respect to personal obligations and character sex education fundamentally misses the mark.[/list=a]
.
Forgive the confrontational approach, I just thought sex education fundamentally misrepresents sex in the greater context of human dignity, life and family. I thought your post expressed honest concern for the well-being of teenagers, one of the view.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

lpetrich

That's not only crude stereotyping, but demonstrably false in many cases. Some teens may have lived very sheltered lives, but there are those who haven't. Early teens may not have much of a clue, but they can learn as they move into their late teens.

In several European countries, teenage-pregnancy and STD rates are shockingly low by American standards -- which means that many European teens seem to have no trouble practicing reasonably safe sex. So if Europeans can do it, then why not Americans?

And dk seems to think that married people want every child they are capable of producing, that married women never get abortions, and that married people can never transmit STD's among themselves.

I wonder what dk would think about some young lady who got herself pregnant with the help of a turkey baster so she could brag that she had never had sex in her life.

Also, many inner-city young women view having a child as a sign that they are grown up, and many inner-city young men view making someone pregnant as a sign that they also are grown up. So would any of you prefer the turkey-baster method as a way of accomplishing this feat while seeming sexually virtuous?

dk

<ol type="1">[*]dk: I’m not sure how you arrived at these conclusions but sex education can’t possible equip teenagers with protection from unwanted children and STDs. At best sex education can make teenagers aware that unmarried sex leads to STDs, abortion and unwanted children. Sex places upon teenagers obligations and consequences far beyond their comprehension and experience.
lpetrich: That's not only crude stereotyping, but demonstrably false in many cases. Some teens may have lived very sheltered lives, but there are those who haven't. Early teens may not have much of a clue, but they can learn as they move into their late teens.

dk: Stereotype? The only stereotype I made was in reference to an “unwanted child”, and I agree. Sabine Grant used the term ‘unwanted pregnancy’ and nobody on the thread blinked an eye, so I escalated the error of equivocation to an unwanted child. In fact I’ve only met a handful of woman that actually wanted to be pregnant, and the delusion soon passed. To stereotype teenage pregnancy as “unwanted” fundamentally misstates the problem of teen pregnancy with the fallacy of equivocation. STDs on the other hand are correctly described as unwanted, and transmitted from person to person by non-marital sex. Men spread more STDs through non-marital sex because they tend to be more promiscuous. This might seem an outlandish claim but quite substantial because 1) amongst lesbians STDs are rare, and 2) amongst gays STDs pose a grave threat. Ironically sex education courses prepared by Planned Parenthood censor the fact from the curriculum. Abstinence based programs make the point a central issue of the curriculum. Men of character abstain out of respect for women, and women abstain because they have respect for themselves and their children. I submit the myth of ‘sexual liberation’ stereotypes the virtue of chastity as archaic. The CDC says 45 million adults (over the age of 13) carry genital herpes (HSV-2), with a million new cases a year, 1/4 of new cases afflict teenagers. Herpes is incurable. About 20 million adults carry HPV with 5.5 million new cases a year. Lets get honest, the day of teenage “safe sex” ended about 20 years ago. Sex education from the 1960s to 1994 was an agenda item pushed by special interest groups, and never did have anything to do with “safe sex”. [*]lpetrich: In several European countries, teenage-pregnancy and STD rates are shockingly low by American standards -- which means that many European teens seem to have no trouble practicing reasonably safe sex. So if Europeans can do it, then why not Americans?
dk:. I don’t know how to break this to you lpetrich but the US is a country of immigrants from all over the world, not just Europe. I think there is much to be learned from European nations, but they can’t solve our problems anymore than we can solve theirs.

.[*]lpetrich: And dk seems to think that married people want every child they are capable of producing, that married women never get abortions, and that married people can never transmit STD's among themselves.

dk: Actually a report just came out that teenage abortion rates are down 40%, and bodes well for the effectiveness of abstinence based programs. Thirty years of sex education under the curriculums developed by Planned Parenthood (on the taxpayers dime) has clearly been a failure.[*][*]dk: ... The requirements of inner city black communities where drugs and unwed mothers are the norm demands special consideration. I have buddy teaching sex ed in a school of 5,000. Fully 1/4 of the enrolled students already have children or are pregnant. ...[*]lpetrich: I wonder what dk would think about some young lady who got herself pregnant with the help of a turkey baster so she could brag that she had never had sex in her life.
dk: You know lp, you got me there, I haven’t given it much thought. I did see a sitcom on TV where a farm girl on a turkey farm got the clap from riding on a tractor in a bikini. Maybe it was the same girl.[*]lpetrich: Also, many inner-city young women view having a child as a sign that they are grown up, and many inner-city young men view making someone pregnant as a sign that they also are grown up. So would any of you prefer the turkey-baster method as a way of accomplishing this feat while seeming sexually virtuous?
.
dk: The real point was that the Federal Government is in no position to teach local communities about “safe sex”. Where the Federal Government has targeted communities for “apprenticeship” the results have been bad, worse and calamitous.[/list=a]

Toto

I had to check out your numbers. But the decline has been over 6 years, and is attributed to more openness about sex, more information on contraception, and greater fear of disease.

<a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/4238029.htm" target="_blank">Abortion Rate Drops Significantly</a>

lpetrich

You were stereotyping all teens as being incapable of making reasonable decisions.

(a lot of obsession with STD's deleted)

It seems to me that some people would gladly genetic-engineer new sexually-transmitted diseases if the existing ones were ever conquered. And the rapid progress of molecular-level genetics suggests that that might happen by the end of this decade.

And there was a nice article in <a href="http://www.salon.com" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com</a> on Human Papilloma Virus recently; it's the latest microbe celebrated by the anti-sex brigade. In many cases, it seems to be harmless, and it may be transferred by nonsexual forms of contact.

If one wants to be sure to avoid transmitting STD's, one can always practice nonpenetrative sex acts. Which ought to be encouraged as "starter" sex acts for those who get along reasonably well with each other.

So it's an evil plot by the enemies of the people?

However, the large majority are ultimately from Europe.

And as an American, I find it humiliating that some of our parent nations are far ahead of us in regard to handling sexuality. But it is plain reality, and I have no choice but to accept it.

You might find this site useful: <a href="http://www.allaboutsex.org" target="_blank">http://www.allaboutsex.org</a>

Those black helicopters are everywhere, aren't they? (sarcasm)

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

dangin

HPV is pretty harmless and goes without a thought. Until you get colon cancer or uterine cancer from it. Granted it is only theoretical that HPV is the cause of these cancers in many people, and the last medical researcher I heard lecture on it, said that HPV by itself may never lead to cancer, but if you smoke, drink, eat high fat, or have other environmental or risk factors, then the HPV can increase the chance of cancer.

In simplest terms. If you smoke for 30 years you have a 30% chance of getting a form of cancer. If you smoke for 30 years, and have HPV you have a 70% chance of getting a form of cancer. (These numbers are not scientific, simply illustrative, I don't know the actual numbers.

That said, the key is protecting yourself. Abstinence is just about as stupid an answer as there is to any sex issue.

Abstinence doesn't work.

Why, because sex makes the world go round, but this argument doesn't belong here. Simply stated. Everyone has sex, everyone living today represents millions of years of sex acts. Everyone living today is the product of an evolutionary path that is entirely shaped by sex.

Sex is more important than I can even express, and repressing it is far more unhealthy than practicing safe sex with multiple partners over a lifetime.

I'd finish it off by saying multiple sex partners over the course of a lifetime is the norm for our species. Even among christians.

4th Generation Atheist

By "sexual activity" I'm implying those activites that involve the marked complication of another person. I wouldn't give a crap if my kid masturbated at six months. I'd be bothered if he did so so much in adolescence he couldn't concentrate on his studeis; but on the other hand, I'd feel the same way if he spent that much time playing video games.

Apparently, there isn't room for much middle ground in this discussion. I hadn't realized the "real" issue was whether or not society should allow teens to feel genital pleasure. I'd rather thought that wasn't even up for debate, since it's a natural development anyway. I'd thought the issue was maturity and safety; what information schoolkids need and how to get that information to them. No "moral" issue involved, just a "cautionary" one. As an aside, I'd intended to point out that there is more diversity in terms of personal choices in this area among nontheists than a lot of Xns seem to think. But again, this thread isn't for middle people. So to determine my opinion:

1. Look at your own.
2. Assume I have the opposite, and in as much of an extreme as possible.

Hope that's helpful. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

PopeInTheWoods

Hey, that sort of logic only belongs in the Political Discussions Forum!

lpetrich

That is actually a reasonable position. Masturbation is the ultimate in safe sex, and it is disappointing that it is not celebrated as such, especially in sex-education classes.

I think that part of the problem here is definition. I may be using a more broad definition of sexual activity than some here have been doing. Thus, masturbation and nonpenetrative sex (mutual masturbation, between-the-legs sex, etc.) may not be counted as sex acts by some here. Or maybe only masturbation may not be counted as sex; it's hard to tell sometimes. But when some people don't count oral sex as sex...

Sabine Grant

DK : I totaly agree with you that ethics have a lot to do with how an individual will behave sexualy or they will assume the "unwanted" child.
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". It then becomes a political matter or a matter of legislation. Under the Clinton administration, there was a big push for the protected sex curriculum and no credibility given to presenting the notion of abstinence. Under the Bush administration, we may see the extreme.
Because we all have different values as parents, we have to somehow "compromise" with the political correctness of the times as it is reflected in our schools. I entrust only scientific and medical data in the schools but I entrust my own perception of values for my kids'ethics.
Abortion has fallen for the same political correctness and scientific data is not always provided to a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy. We are even confused as to the definition of when " does life start". Some will abide only to the notion of constitutional identity, others to " but there is a heart beat at 4 weeks". Do we draw the line under the term of identity or when there are vital signs ? there is so much confusion that we seem to have lost the focus on what needs to be accomplished.
What is the goal? IMO as you defined it...we have to prevent self destructive behaviors by giving kids a sense of self dignity. Such as " you do not have to say yes". In most instances, the first sexual experience of a female is not motivated by hormones... it is either the fear to lose her boy friend or a need to " be normal". For some it is a moment of tenderness they think they otherwise would not have. Does that sound familiar to any other female?
I am not saying that teen girls are being exploited by teen boys but that the reason why they will have sex is vastly different than their boy friend's. And in most cases who will bear the "unwanted pregnancy" the most and face either quitting school ( if no parental support)or deal with the aspects of PAS ( post abortion syndrom)? the teen girl. I believe female teens can adopt the abstinence curriculum better than male teens. I believe it is worth teaching a 14 year old that it is OK to say no.