PDA

View Full Version : Teacher fired for condom demonstration


peter2002
Jan 31, 2003, 08:45 AM
Jeez, it is so difficult to find good teachers and they go and fire this guy who is trying to help students that don't know how to use condoms and don't want to get pregnant nor STDs.

I wish I had a teacher like this when I was in high school. This info would have saved me a lot of trouble when I was young.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/01/31/teacher.condom.demo.ap/index.html

Seriously, it is really hypocritical of them to fire this guy. Learning about love and sexuality is better than learning about war and death and how glorious it is to be in the military which is the kind of brainwashing they teach these days.

Pete

Backtothemac
Jan 31, 2003, 09:02 AM
The teacher should have been fired! If he was my daughters teacher, he would have probably gotten his ass whipped too. Everyone on the left keep saying we can't offend people, well, premarital sex is a sin in my religion so, why force this type of education on my child? I will send my daughter to school to learn about math, science, english, foreign languages, etc. NOT ABOUT SEX.

When are people going to understand that this is the job of the parent, not the school. The school is not to prepare my child for her private, life, just her public education!

Man, this **** pisses me off!

rainman::|:|
Jan 31, 2003, 09:18 AM
Most teenagers are sexually active. Regardless of religion, etc. Parents just aren't talking to their kids about sex, so someone has to- STDs and unwanted pregnancy run rampant among highschoolers. Schools should do everything possible to teach this sort of thing, they're not telling the kids to have sex, they're just telling them that if they do, they need to be safe.

I cannot think of any religion where knowledge of safe sex is a sin in itself.

Anything that can be done to slow the spread of disease-- particularly HIV, is a good thing. Same goes for pregnancy. I've watched intelligent girls with a lot of potential throw their lives away by having a child in HS, dropping out, and never getting to go to college.

If you're so easily offended, you can easily have your child opt out of the sex-ed program at your school, they respect everyone's views on the subject. But you had damn well better not complain if that child gets an incurable disease or becomes a parent.

pnw

Backtothemac
Jan 31, 2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
Most teenagers are sexually active. Regardless of religion, etc. Parents just aren't talking to their kids about sex, so someone has to- STDs and unwanted pregnancy run rampant among highschoolers. Schools should do everything possible to teach this sort of thing, they're not telling the kids to have sex, they're just telling them that if they do, they need to be safe.

I cannot think of any religion where knowledge of safe sex is a sin in itself.

Anything that can be done to slow the spread of disease-- particularly HIV, is a good thing. Same goes for pregnancy. I've watched intelligent girls with a lot of potential throw their lives away by having a child in HS, dropping out, and never getting to go to college.

If you're so easily offended, you can easily have your child opt out of the sex-ed program at your school, they respect everyone's views on the subject. But you had damn well better not complain if that child gets an incurable disease or becomes a parent.

pnw

Nope Paul, that is not it. I don't care what all the other parents do or don't do. I care what I do, with my child! If parents are not talking, then maybe we need classes for the parents, but to teach 14 year olds in a school with mood lighting, and music, and have 2 of them pretend to be sex theripists, the guy should have been fired.

Now I am not talking about Anatomy. That is part of science. But sex ed. NO! And it is not always a voluntary class. Many schools require it. They have no right! That is an invasion of privacy, and way, way out of line. But hey that is the liberal agenda right. You can't pray at a football game before the game because you might offend someone, but you can teach a child anything regardless of how that may offend someone.

DOUBLE STANDARD!

That is the problem with the left. It is the silencing of all ideas that Democrats do. They try to keep good debate from occuring.

Sad really.

Kid Red
Jan 31, 2003, 09:26 AM
Wow, that's odd, I had sex education in 5th grade. So I guess I learned about sex in school, along with math, english and science. And I will send my daughter to school to learn about sex in the same manner.

We had condoms demonstrated and passed out for free at my elementary school. I don't agree with his firing, but he didnt have prior approval or part of the curriculum. The superintendent is a moron, we *do* need this in our schools, but by qualified teachers/doctors.

Kid Red
Jan 31, 2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Nope Paul, that is not it. I don't care what all the other parents do or don't do. I care what I do, with my child! If parents are not talking, then maybe we need classes for the parents, but to teach 14 year olds in a school with mood lighting, and music, and have 2 of them pretend to be sex theripists, the guy should have been fired.

Now I am not talking about Anatomy. That is part of science. But sex ed. NO! And it is not always a voluntary class. Many schools require it. They have no right! That is an invasion of privacy, and way, way out of line. But hey that is the liberal agenda right. You can't pray at a football game before the game because you might offend someone, but you can teach a child anything regardless of how that may offend someone.

DOUBLE STANDARD!

That is the problem with the left. It is the silencing of all ideas that Democrats do. They try to keep good debate from occuring.

Sad really.

Are yuo right handed? Because you seem to have a problem with your left.

Backtothemac
Jan 31, 2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Kid Red
Wow, that's odd, I had sex education in 5th grade. So I guess I learned about sex in school, along with math, english and science. And I will send my daughter to school to learn about sex in the same manner.

We had condoms demonstrated and passed out for free at my elementary school. I don't agree with his firing, but he didnt have prior approval or part of the curriculum. The superintendent is a moron, we *do* need this in our schools, but by qualified teachers/doctors.

Wow, that's odd, I NEVER had any sex education in my schools. We had one girl get pregnant in school, and she went on to go to Harvard, and now works for NASA as a flight engineer. So, along with math, english, and science, OUR PARENTS WERE GOOD PARENTS AND TOLD US WHAT WE NEEDED TO KNOW! This was in the 80's at the height of AIDS. So, I hope that you will teach your daughter about sex on your own. Do you have a daughter, or is this a future daughter? So, you had condoms demonstrated at YOUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. Where did you go to school? That is just sick, elementary school! Your talking 5th grade and below right.

Man this world is so friggin warped it is unreal.

rainman::|:|
Jan 31, 2003, 09:46 AM
I agree that this situation was a bit over the top. But I still very much agree with sex ed in schools-- i, too, had it first in 5th grade (it *was* an anatomy lesson then*, and in 8th grade we had the full course. It was an open environment where the kids could feel free to ask questions and take away a lot of the ignorance surrounding the subject. You know, kids in HS commonly think that douching with Coca-Cola prevents pregnancy? Or that certain combinations of over-the-counter medications prevent conception? Or that a woman cannot get pregnant or a disease if you use the pull-out method? That's what sex ed is for.

And it's a law that if parents do not want their kids in sex ed, they can opt out. It cannot be considered a requirement for graduation or advancement, and generally the grade does not apply towards GPA (different schools have different policies on this). All a parent has to do is call the school when they get notification (which is also required, i believe) that their child is going to take place in sex ed, and the kid can be moved out of the class before it even begins. It's not a hugely uncommon thing, either, I remember one kid in particular who did not go through it, he went to study hall instead.

BTTM, it is about what other parents do or don't do. If you plan on educating your kids on safe sex early on (they'll be sexually active years before you ever know it, by the way; 12-year-olds are mildly sexually active as a matter of principal anymore) that's great... pull your kids out of sex ed. But not a lot of parents want to deal with it (and a lot of parents are very happy about sex education in schools). And the kids themselves deserve to learn about the responsibilities of being sexually active before they make that decision. It's certainly not a good thing that kids are having sex earlier and earlier, but it IS a reality, and while they will find out quickly the hard truths on the subject, they should get a chance to learn those truths before they've done irreversable damage to their lives.

Chaszmyr
Jan 31, 2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Wow, that's odd, I NEVER had any sex education in my schools.

I had sex education in my schools 6th, 7th, and 8th, and 9th grade

iAlan
Jan 31, 2003, 09:54 AM
I agree that parents should be required to attend classes on how to talk to thier children about sex.

Some parents just aren't capable of talking to their kids about what could easily become an embarrasing topic.

I would be interested to know the ratio of people who were educated about sex by their parents who are now educating their own children versus those who were educated at school who are now educating their own children?

I am single, no kids, was taught about sex at school, by friends and from porno videos. I was not ashamed to talk to my parents, and they answered my questions when I asked, but they did not instigate discussions on the subject. I do not know if my attitude toward sex would be different if I learnt about it differently.

Backtothemac
Jan 31, 2003, 09:55 AM
If they don't have to be in the class, lets see what is the alternative, Study Hall? That is like punishment. That is the crap that pisses me off. No, Mr. Stacey, your daughter doesn't have to go to Sex Ed, but can go to study hall instead!

As for you theory Paul. My dad taught me about Sex when I was in the 4th grade, and he did it with tact, and any information I asked he gave, and he continued every year of my life asking me if I had questions. I did not have sex until I was 18. Just because a child is young doesn't mean that they will have sex. It was a matter of responsiblity that my father instilled in me that I never did it.

My mind will never change on this. It will never, ever be the job of a school to teach my daughter about sex. Nothing will ever change that.

Just like nothing will ever change your opinion about the neccessity of gay rights legislation, or that gay marrage should be legal, etc. It is just fact, and opinion, and both have started wars. Still, I respect your opinion, and your ability to explain your position well ;)

rainman::|:|
Jan 31, 2003, 09:59 AM
True that-- you and i have to be two of the most opinionated people around here :) it's why i stopped reading the political threads... To some extent, debate is a healthy way to keep informed on a subject, but there's a fine line between that and overzealousness.

and have i made myself *that* transparent on the gay rights issue? ;)

pnw

Backtothemac
Jan 31, 2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
True that-- you and i have to be two of the most opinionated people around here :) it's why i stopped reading the political threads... To some extent, debate is a healthy way to keep informed on a subject, but there's a fine line between that and overzealousness.

and have i made myself *that* transparent on the gay rights issue? ;)

pnw

Hey, remember now that you are talking to a Republican here :p

Still, I agree that gay rights legislation is needed. People are people, and I think one of the best ways to reduce the prejudice that exists is to make it no big deal, because it isn't.

I sleep with women, you sleep with men. So what. Does that make either one of lesser human beings?

Nope.

dubbelhund
Jan 31, 2003, 10:31 AM
Teenage Birthrate:

About five percent of U. S. teenagers give birth each year. A recent study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute showed teen birthrates here to be twice as high as Canada, England, and Wales, three times as high as Sweden, and seven times higher than the Netherlands.

Teenage Pregnancy Rate:

Of the 29 million young people between the ages of 13 and 19, approximately 12 million have had sexual intercourse. Of this group, in 1981, more than 1.1 million became pregnant; three- quarters of these pregnancies were unintended, and 434,000 ended in abortion (What Government Can Do, 1984). The number of pregnancies increased among teenagers in all age groups during the 1970s, but among those who were sexually active the pregnancy rate has been declining. Because of increased and more consistent use of contraceptives by teenagers, the rate of pregnancy among them has been increasing more slowly than their rate of sexual activity. Although the number of teenagers who are sexually active increased by two-thirds over the 1970s, over half of U.S. teenagers are sexually inactive.

dubbelhund
Jan 31, 2003, 10:45 AM
Rates of Teenage Childbearing in the U.S. Are the Highest in the Developed World.

The U.S. teenage birth rate is the highest in the developed world: twice as high as England's, three times as high as Australia's, four times as high as Germany's, six times as high as France's, eight times as high as the Netherlands', and 15 times as high as Japan's (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998; Berne & Huberman, 1999).

Reasons for the lower rates of teenage childbearing in these countries include mandatory, medically accurate sexuality education programs that provide comprehensive information and encourage teens to make responsible choices easy access to contraception and other forms of reproductive health care, including abortion social acceptance of adolescent sexual expression as normal and healthy straightforward public health media campaigns government support for the right of teens to accurate information and confidential services (Berne & Huberman, 1999)

Roger1
Jan 31, 2003, 10:54 AM
This teacher has a serious common sense issue. After reading the article and finding out how he taught the class (mood music?) some type of discipline was in order. But then he maintains he never had proper training for this class... If so, why didn't he mention this to his superiors? I think more people than him need some discipline.

BTW, I feel sex ed can be taught in the class room in a tactful manner, as a part of a health class. But not the way this guy did it. Mood music and "therapists" is not the way to go.

Sun Baked
Jan 31, 2003, 11:10 AM
I guess I'll have to refrain from any oral arguments and/or comments, they may just be below the belt.

lmalave
Jan 31, 2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
The school is not to prepare my child for her private, life, just her public education!

Totally agree with you here, man. I don't mind sex being taught from a purely biological perspective, but Sex Ed issues are exactly the kind of fluff that needs to be eliminated from schools anyway. Messages to practice safe sex (or abstinence), say no to drugs, don't drink and drive, etc. are all well-intentioned, but as you said, that is NOT the job of schools. The job of schools is to teach Language, Math, Science, Literature, etc. I remember at my high school we had so much crap like a First Aid class, a personal finance classes, home-ec type classes etc (by the end of my sophomore year I petitioned to get out of these stupid classes so I could take more Advanced Placement type classes). Those are fine classes for people of any age to take in the eveningg at the local community center or something on their own time, but they do not belong in an official school curriculum. Let's stick to the basics, folks. The job of a school is NOT to produce good citizens - that is the job of the parents.

(and by the way I am a card-carrying flaming liberal, but I don't think it's right or fair to push my views on anyone else, especially using public funds)

idkew
Jan 31, 2003, 12:29 PM
back in middle school, maybe 7th or 8th grade our teachers demonstrated condoms on a bananna. i don't see what the big deal is. kids needs to learn that stuff.

lmalave
Jan 31, 2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
Rates of Teenage Childbearing in the U.S. Are the Highest in the Developed World.

The U.S. teenage birth rate is the highest in the developed world: twice as high as England's, three times as high as Australia's, four times as high as Germany's, six times as high as France's, eight times as high as the Netherlands', and 15 times as high as Japan's (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998; Berne & Huberman, 1999).

Reasons for the lower rates of teenage childbearing in these countries include mandatory, medically accurate sexuality education programs that provide comprehensive information and encourage teens to make responsible choices easy access to contraception and other forms of reproductive health care, including abortion social acceptance of adolescent sexual expression as normal and healthy straightforward public health media campaigns government support for the right of teens to accurate information and confidential services (Berne & Huberman, 1999)

I think you (or the article you're quoting) isn't entirely accurate. How do you explain the fact that all the countries above have a much lower rate of drug use? How do you explain that they have a much lower incidence of violence? (school violence, for example). The answer I think is pretty clear: the real reason for the above problems are cultural and socio-economic. Do you seriously think Japan's teenage birth rate is due to their comprehensive sex education? Yeah, RIGHT! C'mon, I know you're smarter than that.

If we want to lower teenage pregnancy, we need to work on the social and economic issues that are behind almost 100% of the cases.

The Sheck
Jan 31, 2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by lmalave
The job of schools is to teach Language, Math, Science, Literature, etc.

No, the job of schools is to prepare you to be a productive member of society. I think learning birth control methods and sex education would enable you to be a productive member of society, don't you?

I remember at my high school we had so much crap like a First Aid class, a personal finance classes, home-ec type classes etc (by the end of my sophomore year I petitioned to get out of these stupid classes so I could take more Advanced Placement type classes).

Again, how are classes about learning how to manage your money, learning how to cook, buy groceries, spend your food money, and learning basic first-aid skills be classified as not productive to society?

Look, I understand your thoughts on parents teaching this stuff, and not schools, but the fact remains, parents petition these subjects to be taught in schools because they either a) don't have the time to do it or b) don't want to do it. Likewise, in most cases, parental notification slips are passed out for sex ed. so a parent can decide for a child to pursue another activity while the lesson is being taught. It's not counted against their grades, and everyone's happy. I don't think it's some liberal conspiracy that these things are in public schools, it's a reflection of our society. And if the pendulum swings the other way, the schools will reflect that.

Backtothemac
Jan 31, 2003, 01:58 PM
Parents petition! That is rich. I have never know of a single parent to petition my schools to teach home ec. That was just part of the classes, but sex ed. No. Having sex explained in biology that is fine, but the GOVERNMENT, yes, publicly funded schools should respect those who do not want this taught to their children!

Sun Baked
Jan 31, 2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Parents petition! That is rich. I have never know of a single parent to petition my schools to teach home ec. That was just part of the classes, but sex ed. No. Having sex explained in biology that is fine, but the GOVERNMENT, yes, publicly funded schools should respect those who do not want this taught to their children! There are lots of thing taught to the masses that the minority DON'T want taught to their children.

If they don't want their kids to learn something, home school them during that semester or keep them home that day.

Stop bitching and moaning AFTER the fact if you are not keeping an eye on you childs education, you do have choice in the matter or alternatives - but it takes some effort to be active in their education.

If it benefits the majority of the children, why cater to the minority.

But, something this sensitive should be taught by those specially trained in educating those to who it will be taught.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 31, 2003, 02:13 PM
It boils down to who is supposed to be raising our children us? or big brother uncle sam/liberal democrats who think Govt should be in every aspect of our lifes! Sorry all you libearals that think Govt should do all! I VOTE FOR US! Lets leave parenting to parents. You are allways going to have a few parents that are bad parents thats a fact! But the majority of parents love their kids so lets get govt the hell out of our lives! And we do need to teach children to wait until adulthood before having sex. Not teach children this is how you do it!

dricci
Jan 31, 2003, 02:19 PM
Parents should teach their kids about sex and other vital things in life. But covering your eyes and saying "not my kids, they're too smart to do that" isn't going to help anything. The problem with most in school sex-ed classes is they're not good enough. Showing drawings of reporductive organs and saying "don't put them together until married OR ELSE!" isn't helping anything. I think this guy had the right idea to have an open setting and not to be so uptight about it, the students were probably more comfortable with it, too and I'm sure this guy is a very good teacher. Until more parents start taking responsibility, then I think in-school sex ed (when taught right where the kids actually learn things that can save their lives instead of having a class to sit in and joke around in for an hour) is a very good thing that will save lives. Teen pregnancy and AIDS aren't going away with the current crappy plans in place. The first place things are taught should always be at home by parents, but for many, school is the last chance to learn about this stuff before teens are exposed to peer preasure about sex and STDs.

dricci
Jan 31, 2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
And we do need to teach children to wait until adulthood before having sex. Not teach children this is how you do it!

Yeah, the current methods of teaching this are working real well, dude :rolleyes:

Peer preasure and TV are more of an influence on kids than someone standing in front of a room saying "WAIT TIL YOUR MARRIED OR ELSE!"

If a kid wants to do it with someone, then they're going to do it. Period. Same with killing, drinking, drugs, etc. No laws/bans/lectures are going to change that. But education on how to do it SAFELY and PROPERLY is KEY to preventing pregnancy and AIDS. Face it, telling kids NO doesn't change ANYTHING. Proper education can.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 31, 2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by dricci


Yeah, the current methods of teaching this are working real well, dude :rolleyes:

Peer preasure and TV are more of an influence on kids than someone standing in front of a room saying "WAIT TIL YOUR MARRIED OR ELSE!"

If a kid wants to do it with someone, then they're going to do it. Period. Same with killing, drinking, drugs, etc. No laws/bans/lectures are going to change that. But education on how to do it SAFELY and PROPERLY is KEY to preventing pregnancy and AIDS. Face it, telling kids NO doesn't change ANYTHING. Proper education can. Proper Education would tell them dont have sex until you are an adult and married!Otherwise there are to many negative things can happen!pregnancy!STDs,Let me say it one more time for the nuckleheads- PREGNANCY!kids dont need to be having kids and condoms do break and leak all of my liberal freinds so the best thing we can do is educate/educate/educate! Not teach hey slap one of these on and you'll be fine!

lmalave
Jan 31, 2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by dricci


Yeah, the current methods of teaching this are working real well, dude :rolleyes:

Peer preasure and TV are more of an influence on kids than someone standing in front of a room saying "WAIT TIL YOUR MARRIED OR ELSE!"

If a kid wants to do it with someone, then they're going to do it. Period. Same with killing, drinking, drugs, etc. No laws/bans/lectures are going to change that. But education on how to do it SAFELY and PROPERLY is KEY to preventing pregnancy and AIDS. Face it, telling kids NO doesn't change ANYTHING. Proper education can.

Read my previous post. This is a CULTURAL problem, NOT an education problem. Do you REALLY think that teenage pregnancy is due to ignorance? Look, kids are going to do what they're going to do INCLUDING HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX! Most of these girls KNOW they can get pregnant, for goodness sakes!!! To try to say that they don't know is EXTREMELY condescending, don't you think :mad:
The problem is SELF-ESTEEM. A large number of these teenage pregnancies are caused by significantly older males that prey on these girls and know how to manipulate them. Girls that have a strong sense of themselves aren't going to let a guy pressure them into doing something against their own better judgement.:mad:

FredAkbar
Jan 31, 2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Proper Education would tell them dont have sex until you are an adult and married!Otherwise there are to many negative things can happen!pregnancy!STDs,Let me say it one more time for the nuckleheads- PREGNANCY!kids dont need to be having kids and condoms do break and leak all of my liberal freinds so the best thing we can do is educate/educate/educate! Not teach hey slap one of these on and you'll be fine!

I have to agree with dricci's post (a couple posts back). Even if "proper education" told kids not to have sex at all, and even if parents stressed it too, a lot of kids would still do it anyway. True, there probably would be less kids having sex--but there would also be less kids using protection. We all know that a kid could easily decide to ignore whatever their parents tell them, if they could get away with it, and if they were pressured into doing so by peers or TV or whatever.

If this was a perfect, orderly, disciplined world, then yes, parents could say "don't have sex until you're married" and all kids would listen. However, that world is just a fantasy. I mean, come on, do you really think that if we just have parents telling kids not to do it, that kids will always listen?

The Sheck
Jan 31, 2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
publicly funded schools should respect those who do not want this taught to their children!

They do. For things like sex ed. it's OPTIONAL for most schools. If you don't want your kid there, check the box next to 'no' on the parental notification slip and send it back in. If you're worried about your child sitting in a study hall instead of learning something for the week that sex ed. is taught, request an alternate assignment for your child to do (usually one is provided regardless of if you ask or not). It's not a big deal, really.

If you're upset about this, why not attend a local school board meeting to express your views? They occur once every two weeks usually, and allow plenty of time for parents and citizens to express their views on how the school should be run.

ejb190
Jan 31, 2003, 05:06 PM
There is a problem with how sex education is taught. They tell the kids beware of HIV and getting pregnant, hand the kids condoms and tout "safe sex" as a cure all. But they forget about the 30 odd other STD's, some of which are transmitted just by contact.

And what about these kid's emotional health? A couple of kids have sex. The girl is "in love" and thinks the guy is committed to her. The guy dumps her and brags to his friends about his "conquest". Distraught and depressed the girl tries to O.D. What good was the sex education class?

I used to work with high school kids. You would be surprised how often something like this plays out...

jelloshotsrule
Jan 31, 2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Proper Education would tell them dont have sex until you are an adult and married!Otherwise there are to many negative things can happen!pregnancy!STDs,Let me say it one more time for the nuckleheads- PREGNANCY!kids dont need to be having kids and condoms do break and leak all of my liberal freinds so the best thing we can do is educate/educate/educate! Not teach hey slap one of these on and you'll be fine!

wow... i'm all for teaching your own children morals and trying to impress upon them your beliefs in right and wrong, etc. including feelings about sex.

but two things.

1. thinking you can TELL kids NOT to do something and have them listen... do you actually think that makes sense? sure, you bring up the reasons, but you don't just TELL them. you explain it all to them.

2. where does "liberal" or "conservative" really come into this? believe it or not, i bet some generally liberal folks feel that sex ed shouldn't be in school. and likewise, i bet some conservative type folks think it's a good idea. so there's no need to just try to label all the people you disagree with.

i think that the biological aspect of sex ed should be taught in schools. definitely. and i'm not sure about the rest. yes, parents *should* be the ones to teach their children about the moral implications of sex and all that... but what about people whose parents aren't teaching them? i don't think they should be disregarded... but i don't have a good solution to do some of both.

tough call...

vniow
Jan 31, 2003, 05:46 PM
The problem with most sex ed classes is that they stink, period.

All they do is make the students sit down and watch a bunch of slides showing where all the little organs go and whatnot while the little 13 year olds are in the back are giggling over the word 'gonads'.
If the schools want to teach real sex ed, they're going to have to go a lot farther than basic biology. They're going to have to teach kids about anal sex, oral sex, why some people feel the urge to have sex with animals or dead people, masturbation, homosexuality, gender dysphoria, fethishes, love, hate, jealousy, commitment, ahy some people are uptight about it and why some people are too expressive with it, all things sex cuz there's a lot more to it than biology folks.

But the reason why current sex ed or my idealized version of sex ed aren't very effective is because of one simple thing called relationship.
My idealized version of sex ed would be taught in schools not to the kids, but to the parents because the relationship that the kids have with the teachers is not the same relationship that the kids have with the parents and is not the kind of relationship which would be most effective in teaching kids about sex in my opinion, because sex is all about closeness and I don't know about you, but I have a closer relationship with my parents then my teachers.

If teaching kids sex ed makes you and the kids uncomfortable, good. Nobody ever really learns anything when the water's calm.

dubbelhund
Jan 31, 2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by lmalave


I think you (or the article you're quoting) isn't entirely accurate. How do you explain the fact that all the countries above have a much lower rate of drug use? How do you explain that they have a much lower incidence of violence? (school violence, for example). The answer I think is pretty clear: the real reason for the above problems are cultural and socio-economic. Do you seriously think Japan's teenage birth rate is due to their comprehensive sex education? Yeah, RIGHT! C'mon, I know you're smarter than that.

If we want to lower teenage pregnancy, we need to work on the social and economic issues that are behind almost 100% of the cases.

I don't "think" anything. This is not an article, it is statistics taken from two reliable sources: Planned Parenthood and the Alan Guttmacher Institute. I don't understand your reasoning? Who said anything about drugs and violence? I don't "think" anything about the birthrate among the Japanese teenagers. I have not lived in Japan (yet) so I do not have personal experience. But I do have experience with other countries mentioned. I am from Sweden but I live in the US because my wife is from here and I agree with you that the underlying issue is a socio-economic one.

I have a real problem with all the arrogant and ignorant, patriotic fanatics in this country and I don't understand where all their anger and fear is coming from. This is NOT the greatest country in the world, although it could be if you all started questioning things a little more - which is how improvement is achieved, by the way.

rainman::|:|
Jan 31, 2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by ejb190
There is a problem with how sex education is taught. They tell the kids beware of HIV and getting pregnant, hand the kids condoms and tout "safe sex" as a cure all. But they forget about the 30 odd other STD's, some of which are transmitted just by contact.

And what about these kid's emotional health? A couple of kids have sex. The girl is "in love" and thinks the guy is committed to her. The guy dumps her and brags to his friends about his "conquest". Distraught and depressed the girl tries to O.D. What good was the sex education class?

I used to work with high school kids. You would be surprised how often something like this plays out...

Our sex ed covered all of the types of dieases, we had whole units on them, and they also went into great depth with the emotional maturity required to have sex-- and attempted to make kids feel a little safer in being open with their parents.

But at the same time, going back to BTTM and my later discussion, on gay rights. Our sex ed class was taught by a very conservative woman who used a great deal of propoganda (some "spiritual" and religious "proof" too) to tell the kids that homosexuality is wrong, period. Now aside from how devistating that is to a closeted gay teenager, it's a moral and ethical opinion that my parents and I were deeply offended by her teaching. So i can understand the need for there to be a line between sex ed and "sex theory" if you will... they need to let the parents teach kids morals.

I still have to believe there is a real use for sex ed in public schools; especially since it's optional... tho if i ever have kids i doubt i'll wait for the educational system to teach them the birds and the bees. children of proactive parents don't need their school to teach them sex ed-- but a lot of parents never even discuss this with their children, and until they start, someone has to teach stuff to them sometime-- or else they'll "learn" it for themselves.

pnw

Sun Baked
Jan 31, 2003, 06:45 PM
It's not like the teacher brought in Pee Wee Herman to demonstrate the proper use of a condoms to all the little kiddies.

[edit -- Ooops, bad example. :D :p]

lmalave
Jan 31, 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund

I don't "think" anything. This is not an article, it is statistics taken from two reliable sources: Planned Parenthood and the Alan Guttmacher Institute. I don't understand your reasoning? Who said anything about drugs and violence?
I'm not arguing the data, I'm just arguing the logic. Correlation does NOT equal causality. Just because those countries have lower incidence of teenage pregnancy and also have better sex education, does not in itself prove that they are related. Just look at the data! Why does your country Sweden have 5 times the teenage pregnancy rate of Japan? I really don't think it's because Japan's sex education is 5 times better. Ironically, you own data proves that sex education is largely irrelevant, and that other issues have much more impact.

And if you don't see the link between teenage pregnancy, drugs, and violence then you're thinking about this issue very superficially. Poverty and hopelessness are the real issue behind teenage pregnancy, and also behind drugs and violence. Saying that the issue behind teenage pregnancy is sex education is in my opinion very condescending, and just serves to fuel the argument conservatives make that poor people are just so stupid they don't know any better. These kids KNOW they can get pregnant, they just don't care enough about themselves or their future to stand up to a guy that is pressuring them to have unprotected sex.

Kid Red
Jan 31, 2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Wow, that's odd, I NEVER had any sex education in my schools. We had one girl get pregnant in school, and she went on to go to Harvard, and now works for NASA as a flight engineer. So, along with math, english, and science, OUR PARENTS WERE GOOD PARENTS AND TOLD US WHAT WE NEEDED TO KNOW! This was in the 80's at the height of AIDS. So, I hope that you will teach your daughter about sex on your own. Do you have a daughter, or is this a future daughter? So, you had condoms demonstrated at YOUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. Where did you go to school? That is just sick, elementary school! Your talking 5th grade and below right.

Man this world is so friggin warped it is unreal.

Yes, 5th grade sex education, Miami Fl.

Kid Red
Jan 31, 2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
It boils down to who is supposed to be raising our children us? or big brother uncle sam/liberal democrats who think Govt should be in every aspect of our lifes! Sorry all you libearals that think Govt should do all! I VOTE FOR US! Lets leave parenting to parents. You are allways going to have a few parents that are bad parents thats a fact! But the majority of parents love their kids so lets get govt the hell out of our lives! And we do need to teach children to wait until adulthood before having sex. Not teach children this is how you do it!

Ok, I'm sorry, and you'll get mad probably but that is the most ignorant masseage so far in this thread and there's some think republican crap going on. Kids will be kids, no matter how hard you try. Kids will listen to the friends, socum to peer pressure or hell, just plain follow thier hormones. Sex education teaches them, hey if you do go behind your parents backs, if you do not honor their wishes, at least don't get pregnant or catch a ****ing fatal disease. Sex is real (at least in uraban/suburban communities and cities with more then a few hundred people) and it will happen wether you like it or not. The best thing to do is have your kids educated about some of the possible dangers associated with sex. When i had sex education in 5th grade, I had no idea (along with hlaf my class) that babies came out of mom's vagina. I lost my virginity in 7th grade, and thankfully because of sex ed, I used a condom. So when the girl got mad I broke up with her and claimed to be preganant, i knew she was lying (and she was-urine test) I would've been in 8th grade with a kid. Thankfully, tho, some of you here don't run the country. That's why you should stick to the right and we'll take care of waht's 'left'

Liamcow
Jan 31, 2003, 09:08 PM
Who wants some information on this from an *actual* student, not a parent with (excuse my severe atheism) an unusual religion and overly boasted moral code...
and since I just took sex ed 2 years ago, it couldn't have changed very much so I believe my ideas will be fresh.

1) We're dealing with way different knowledge now than back in the day, most people I know were already learning most of the female anatomy and sex on the internet by age 10 or 12 and around the time we took sex ed mostly all had gotten lets say... far enough.

2) Everyone I know (including myself) knew what condoms are for, what they look like, where they go, etc, etc. BUT we never knew *exactly* how it went on, or that keeping it in your wallet wears it down and makes it go bad, you know, simple stuff like that...

3) As i said, we're more well-rounded these days, but not just the guys, girls are just (or more) as interested in learning about sex by the 8th grade. but because of sex ed, now we know that when it happens, be ********** careful.

I think the guy went a tiny bit extreme with the mood music and lighting, that probably just grossed the students out...they ARENT stupid... :eek:

DakotaGuy
Jan 31, 2003, 11:10 PM
I am a 5th grade teacher and I do feel that sex ed is very important especially in this day and age. I think the teacher deserved to be fired because the way he went about it was wrong. Mood lighting? Bananas? WOW! Maybe he thought it would get attention, but probably the wrong type.

Kids need to be educated about the hazards of having sex and why it is better to wait until they are older. They need to know what type of disease can be transfurred and most of all they need to know that girls can get pregnant.

I am not saying hand out condoms or do demonstrations. To me that just reinforces the idea, "Everyone does it" They need to be aware of ways to make it safer if they choose that type of behavior, but it should never be promoted by the teacher.

I am sick and tired of issues like this made into a liberal or conservative agenda. Yes a good percentage of public school teachers are Democrats, but just because I am liberal politically, does not mean I do not understand what is and what is not right in the classroom. What that guy did was a disgrace to the name of teachers. Yes sex ed is important, but it is also important to put thought into what you are teaching.

You know I like the idea...Let the parents do it...but guess what...most will not. I do things for kids all the time that the parents should do, but if I don't who will? I do not want my students to become a burden on society because I did not do my job even if it goes above and beyond it sometimes.

arn
Jan 31, 2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

My mind will never change on this. It will never, ever be the job of a school to teach my daughter about sex. Nothing will ever change that.


Backtothemac,

I realize this is a very heated subject for you... so I don't want to piss you off... but let's explore this a little...

What specifically is it that you wouldn't want taught in sex ed?

I mean specifically... because let's be frank... think back - when did you learn about "sex" in general... kids are kids... and Liamcow's post signifies... most kids know about sex, oral sex, condoms, pre-marital sex etc.... by the time they reach these classes... right? I mean, even with TV and PG-13 Movies, they know enough to get in trouble...

I don't believe these classes generally try to teach morality or right/wrong... I can only think of a few areas or topics right off hand

Anatomy/Reproduction
Birthcontrol devices and their Proper use
Sexually Transmitted Diseases

arn

Backtothemac
Feb 1, 2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by arn


Backtothemac,

I realize this is a very heated subject for you... so I don't want to piss you off... but let's explore this a little...

What specifically is it that you wouldn't want taught in sex ed?

I mean specifically... because let's be frank... think back - when did you learn about "sex" in general... kids are kids... and Liamcow's post signifies... most kids know about sex, oral sex, condoms, pre-marital sex etc.... by the time they reach these classes... right? I mean, even with TV and PG-13 Movies, they know enough to get in trouble...

I don't believe these classes generally try to teach morality or right/wrong... I can only think of a few areas or topics right off hand

Anatomy/Reproduction
Birthcontrol devices and their Proper use
Sexually Transmitted Diseases

arn

Wow, I must have hit a mark, because I have never seen you in a Political thread. This is the thing about it that really drives me nuts. I believe that premarital sex is wrong. Thus it should not even be discussed. It will be explained to my daughter growning up in the church that it is wrong. People can call me narrow minded, but to me, the Bible is law, and it is absolute. We cannot pick and choose what we like and dislike about it.

So for me, I believe that sex, the aspects of it, should be taught by me. If my daughter doesn't have to take the class, then that is fine, but I think that to much information for young men can be a bad thing, as it could lead to them doing stupid ****. So, as long as she doesn't go to study hall instead of sex ed, then I could be ok with it. But then again, since I find it offensive, should it not be taught. Because if someone finds religion offensive it cannot be taught.

dubbelhund
Feb 1, 2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by lmalave

I'm not arguing the data, I'm just arguing the logic. Correlation does NOT equal causality. Just because those countries have lower incidence of teenage pregnancy and also have better sex education, does not in itself prove that they are related. Just look at the data! Why does your country Sweden have 5 times the teenage pregnancy rate of Japan? I really don't think it's because Japan's sex education is 5 times better. Ironically, you own data proves that sex education is largely irrelevant, and that other issues have much more impact.

And if you don't see the link between teenage pregnancy, drugs, and violence then you're thinking about this issue very superficially. Poverty and hopelessness are the real issue behind teenage pregnancy, and also behind drugs and violence. Saying that the issue behind teenage pregnancy is sex education is in my opinion very condescending, and just serves to fuel the argument conservatives make that poor people are just so stupid they don't know any better. These kids KNOW they can get pregnant, they just don't care enough about themselves or their future to stand up to a guy that is pressuring them to have unprotected sex.


Again, I made no attempt to draw conclusions (like you do) because I do not pretend to be an expert (like you do) at the subject. I would love to find out more about what the contributing factors are, so I will ask my friend who is a very successful Global Health Consultant, to hear what she has to say on the subject. You would be a fool to assume that sex education does not at all play a part in the choices a teenager makes when it comes to sex. It is safe to assume that sex education is a contributing factor as well as the influence of parents, and many other things. You, on the other hand, are making a whole lot of preconcieved assumptions: "Poverty and hopelessness are the real issue behind teenage pregnancy, and also behind drugs and violence." So this is a class issue? Are we an expert on the subject? Again, I would say that these issues probably play a part, but not as much as you would like to think. "Saying that the issue behind teenage pregnancy is sex education is in my opinion very condescending, and just serves to fuel the argument conservatives make that poor people are just so stupid they don't know any better." Another wild assumption of yours, EDUCATION is a good thing regardless of if you are poor or not! Especially to an inexperienced teenager who is very likely to need guidance in making the right choices. Both parents and teachers can aid in providing this.

The US is 20 years behind Sweden when it comes to living standards, health care, and education. I am not complaining, just comparing from my own experience (yes, there are many areas where the reverse is true too). We do have high taxes but our excellent health care is free and there are youth clinics that will give out advice, condoms and do STD tests, all for free. Believe me, this is a good thing! And no, this does not encourage them to have sex, because they will anyways, with or without your support.

I have more fun subjects for you to ramble ignorant remarks over. ILITTERACY. Guess how many millions of Americans can't even read. Guess what the percentage of Americans who do not have a passport (meaning they have never left the country) is. And there's more...

arn
Feb 1, 2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Wow, I must have hit a mark, because I have never seen you in a Political thread.

This is the thing about it that really drives me nuts. I believe that premarital sex is wrong. Thus it should not even be discussed.



Heh... well, it borders on health issues... which I have a peripheral interest in... :)

I understand you feel that premarital sex is wrong... but to be honest, B2TM... it's everywhere - I find it surprising you have such a strong stance on this when it's all over the place... movies, tv, books etc....

it's impossible to avoid the concept of pre-marital sex...

I'm assuming you feel this was encouraging or condoning premarital sex? ... because you have to admit, kids are going to be aware that it exists as an entity.

arn

Backtothemac
Feb 1, 2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by arn


Heh... well, it borders on health issues... which I have a peripheral interest in... :)

I understand you feel that premarital sex is wrong... but to be honest, B2TM... it's everywhere - I find it surprising you have such a strong stance on this when it's all over the place... movies, tv, books etc....

it's impossible to avoid the concept of pre-marital sex...

I'm assuming you feel this was encouraging or condoning premarital sex? ... because you have to admit, kids are going to be aware that it exists as an entity.

arn
Oh, I agree with you completely there. I think that it is all over the place. My daughter will not have a Britney Spears, or Pink, or Christina Aguleara (sp) for a roll model. We will teach her how to really be in the world. I actually have a friend who has never in his life said a curse word, nor watch a rated R movie. I am not a saint, but I believe that it is a moral issue to have people teaching my daughter something that we consider to be immoral.

Being aware of pre-marital sex in society, and having it taught to you in school are not the same. Especially the way this teacher did it. That is the kind of thing that bothers me. If the teacher was teaching from a perspective of abstinence, then I would accept it. They don't they teach from a perspective of prevention.

dubbelhund
Feb 1, 2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by lmalave


Read my previous post. This is a CULTURAL problem, NOT an education problem. Do you REALLY think that teenage pregnancy is due to ignorance? Look, kids are going to do what they're going to do INCLUDING HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX! Most of these girls KNOW they can get pregnant, for goodness sakes!!! To try to say that they don't know is EXTREMELY condescending, don't you think :mad:
The problem is SELF-ESTEEM. A large number of these teenage pregnancies are caused by significantly older males that prey on these girls and know how to manipulate them. Girls that have a strong sense of themselves aren't going to let a guy pressure them into doing something against their own better judgement.:mad:

Again Imalave is pulling random assumptions out of his ass!

arn
Feb 1, 2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Being aware of pre-marital sex in society, and having it taught to you in school are not the same. Especially the way this teacher did it. That is the kind of thing that bothers me. If the teacher was teaching from a perspective of abstinence, then I would accept it. They don't they teach from a perspective of prevention.

I just glanced at the article... it looks like he cross boundaries...

but I don't think most sex-ed classes are "teaching" premartial sex... rather the proper use of the tools, such as the prevention of pregnancy and avoidance of STD's

arn

mangoduck
Feb 1, 2003, 12:52 AM
backtothemac (and whoever else shares his extreme viewpoint):

you need to chill out. seriously. it's not like the guy demonstrated this with the actual equipment -- he used a frickin banana! i've seen a school nurse try to explain how to properly use a condom, and i would think this is easier.

it's great if you prefer to teach your own kids about this privately, but the reason some schools have a sex ed class to begin with is because not all parents give a crap or take the time. it's great if YOU do, but the sad fact remains. a rare example of public school systems being RESPONSIBLE, and you're against it?

if it pisses you off so much for your child to be taught these things alongside everyday curriculum, then by all means write them a note so they can opt out of the class. they tell students beforehand when the class is going to be, so it shouldn't be a problem. all kinds of diseases out there to stumble on, and you're worried about study hall?? what horrible emotional scarring THERE, eh? get real! if it means spending ONE CLASS of ONE SCHOOL DAY in a study hall, then so be it. this is all the longer they were for me in 5th and 8th grade; we're talking LESS THAN AN HOUR. and if your daughter's school refuses to excuse her, i'd like to have a word with them. this should not be a mandatory class.

usually students are shown some kind of video, detailing the parts (tastefully) and explaining how they work. then some discussion afterward about what they saw as well as disease awareness, aftermath of pregnancy, etc. i think this guy's approach was unique in a good way; trying to relate to them on their level using scenarios that aren't bland, unlikely, and unrealistic. reminds me of anti-drug commercials where someone is confronted with a (fairly common) decision and demonstrates how to handle it. if it's ok there, why not applied to sex ed? granted the article doesn't explain exactly what took place, but from what i can tell it was acceptable.

and it's great if someone you know got pregnant in school, but managed to be very successful in life. hurrah for them! this doesn't have any effect on the remaining MAJORITY of pregnant teens that do NOT continue school, and do NOT live up to their full potential because of the burden they now have of caring for a child. do you mean to say it's ok if someone has no clue and severely alters their future for the worse? wouldn't you like the otherwise uneducated people to be educated, and prevent more of this? being proactive is not a bad thing.

lastly, don't bring "liberal" and "conservative" into this. political parties all too often contradict themselves, so these terms essentially have no meaning.

lmalave
Feb 1, 2003, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by dubbelhund



Again, I made no attempt to draw conclusions (like you do) because I do not pretend to be an expert (like you do) at the subject. I would love to find out more about what the contributing factors are, so I will ask my friend who is a very successful Global Health Consultant, to hear what she has to say on the subject. You would be a fool to assume that sex education does not at all play a part in the choices a teenager makes when it comes to sex. It is safe to assume that sex education is a contributing factor as well as the influence of parents, and many other things. You, on the other hand, are making a whole lot of preconcieved assumptions: "Poverty and hopelessness are the real issue behind teenage pregnancy, and also behind drugs and violence." So this is a class issue? Are we an expert on the subject? Again, I would say that these issues probably play a part, but not as much as you would like to think. "Saying that the issue behind teenage pregnancy is sex education is in my opinion very condescending, and just serves to fuel the argument conservatives make that poor people are just so stupid they don't know any better." Another wild assumption of yours, EDUCATION is a good thing regardless of if you are poor or not! Especially to an inexperienced teenager who is very likely to need guidance in making the right choices. Both parents and teachers can aid in providing this.

The US is 20 years behind Sweden when it comes to living standards, health care, and education. I am not complaining, just comparing from my own experience (yes, there are many areas where the reverse is true too). We do have high taxes but our excellent health care is free and there are youth clinics that will give out advice, condoms and do STD tests, all for free. Believe me, this is a good thing! And no, this does not encourage them to have sex, because they will anyways, with or without your support.

I have more fun subjects for you to ramble ignorant remarks over. ILITTERACY. Guess how many millions of Americans can't even read. Guess what the percentage of Americans who do not have a passport (meaning they have
never left the country) is. And there's more...

I don't have to be an expert to see that the very data that you provide is contradicting your thesis. Sex education can make a marginal difference yes, but again, how do you explain that Sweden has 5 times the teenage pregnancy rate of Japan? The logical conclusion to be drawn is that there is a characteristic of Japanese society that's at work there, and I don't know anything about Japan's sex education programs but I doubt that's the reason. Simply stating differences between countries proves nothing. To try to prove a link to sex education you'd have to do before/after studies, seen what effect a sex education program had in a school, city, state, etc. after it was implemented.

You're right, my evidence is anectodal and not scientific. I grew up poor, as did my parents and their parents and their parents and so forth. I have cousins that were pregnant as teenagers and dropped out of high school. My father is a social worker that's worked in impoverished schools at both the middle school and high school level (and is also a certified sex therapist - but that's for adults). My mother has worked in community centers for immigrants where among other things they gave out free condoms. In fact, when I started dating in high school she brought me a bunch of condoms in various textures and colors (much to my chagrin at the time).

HOWEVER, let me point out that a lot of the "studies" that you read about are NOT based on rigorous accepted scientific methodolgies either. The are just policy papers that use "evidence" selectively to "prove" a point that they feel is obvious. Just because a paper is eloquently written does NOT mean it's true. Aristotle, after all, thought it was obvious that heavy objects fell faster than lighter objects, and it's certainly not because he wasn't smart! It just seemed "obvious".

And if you really want to get into a discussion of why Sweden is better than the U.S., than who's the arrogant one? I think you have to be more precise: Sweden is more egalitarian than the U.S., NOT "20 years ahead" in living standards, education, and health as you maintain. Yes, the median standard of living is higher in Sweden (despite what Americans would like to think - they look at averages that are skewed by the millionaires that own almost half the wealth in the U.S.). But by the same token I'm fairly certain that for the top 40% or so in the U.S., education and health are far superior than for the top 40% in Sweden (especially if you take into account college-level education). The best universities in the world are in the U.S., as well as many of the top medical institutions, and those can can afford it receive the full benefit of these.

lmalave
Feb 1, 2003, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by dubbelhund


Again Imalave is pulling random assumptions out of his ass!

Ok, I'll take your disingenuous approach of posting a quote and then claiming that I'm not drawing any conclusions :rolleyes:

So here ya go, from the Alan Guttmacher Institute:

....Because poor and low-income teenagers are somewhat more likely than higher income adolescents to be sexually active and somewhat less likely to use contraceptives or to use them successfully, pregnancy is much more common among lower income teenagers. Poor and low-income adolescents, for example, account for 73% of women aged 15-19 who get pregnant, even though they make up only 38% of all women in that age group....

....As a result of differences in pregnancy and abortion rates, poor and low-income teenagers account for 83% of adolescents who have a baby and become a parent and 85% of those who become an unwed parent. By contrast, higher income teenagers, who make up 62% of all women aged 15-19, represent only 17% of those who give birth....

....Conclusion

Sexual activity is now common among teenagers in the United States, and there is little difference in levels of sexual activity among adolescents of different income levels. However, poor and low-income teenagers are less likely to use contraceptives when they have intercourse (although a large majority do), and thus are more likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy. When they do get pregnant, teenagers from disadvantaged families are also less likely than their more affluent peers to have an abortion; about 60% of poor teenagers and nearly half of low-income adolescents continue their pregnancy and give birth. All too often, the poorest of these young women have-and perceive that they have-futures that are bleak. They see little reason why having a baby now will make their lives "worse," or, conversely, why waiting until later will make their lives "better."

A major challenge for policymakers is to provide these young women with realistic incentives to wait. That means guaranteeing them-and their partners-access to the education and training that will enable them to get good jobs, which, in turn, will give these young people reason to hope that their lives will improve. It also means assuring that family planning and abortion services are widely available on a voluntary basis to all poor and low-income teenagers who want to delay having a baby.

Efforts to prevent adolescent pregnancies and births must be targeted not just at those already poor or currently living in welfare families, but at all women at risk of poverty and welfare, since research shows that most young women who give birth as a teenager do not immediately go on welfare. Eventually, however, many fall into poverty, and very often, welfare dependency....




So while YOU may not have drawn a conclusion, the Alan Guttmacher Institute certainly has. And as the text above shows their position is clearly that teenage pregnancy is almost entirely a problem of POVERTY and HOPELESSNESS. Notice that the they're advocating "education and training that will enable them to get good jobs, which, in turn, will give these young people reason to hope that their lives will improve". THIS is the education that will REALLY make a difference, not education on how to put on a freakin' condom! Not that that's not a good thing to know, but I'm just pointing out that I think it's overemphasized in the debate over teen pregnancy.

dubbelhund
Feb 1, 2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by lmalave


I don't have to be an expert to see that the very data that you provide is contradicting your thesis. Sex education can make a marginal difference yes, but again, how do you explain that Sweden has 5 times the teenage pregnancy rate of Japan? The logical conclusion to be drawn is that there is a characteristic of Japanese society that's at work there, and I don't know anything about Japan's sex education programs but I doubt that's the reason. Simply stating differences between countries proves nothing. To try to prove a link to sex education you'd have to do before/after studies, seen what effect a sex education program had in a school, city, state, etc. after it was implemented.

You're right, my evidence is anectodal and not scientific. I grew up poor, as did my parents and their parents and their parents and so forth. I have cousins that were pregnant as teenagers and dropped out of high school. My father is a social worker that's worked in impoverished schools at both the middle school and high school level (and is also a certified sex therapist - but that's for adults). My mother has worked in community centers for immigrants where among other things they gave out free condoms. In fact, when I started dating in high school she brought me a bunch of condoms in various textures and colors (much to my chagrin at the time).

HOWEVER, let me point out that a lot of the "studies" that you read about are NOT based on rigorous accepted scientific methodolgies either. The are just policy papers that use "evidence" selectively to "prove" a point that they feel is obvious. Just because a paper is eloquently written does NOT mean it's true. Aristotle, after all, thought it was obvious that heavy objects fell faster than lighter objects, and it's certainly not because he wasn't smart! It just seemed "obvious".

And if you really want to get into a discussion of why Sweden is better than the U.S., than who's the arrogant one? I think you have to be more precise: Sweden is more egalitarian than the U.S., NOT "20 years ahead" in living standards, education, and health as you maintain. Yes, the median standard of living is higher in Sweden (despite what Americans would like to think - they look at averages that are skewed by the millionaires that own almost half the wealth in the U.S.). But by the same token I'm fairly certain that for the top 40% or so in the U.S., education and health are far superior than for the top 40% in Sweden (especially if you take into account college-level education). The best universities in the world are in the U.S., as well as many of the top medical institutions, and those can can afford it receive the full benefit of these.


I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. :)

Believe me, I am not arrogant. As I said, I am only speaking from personal experience. I am not trying to put the US down, It is just that I am chocked by the differences in the quality of life between the two countries.

dubbelhund
Feb 1, 2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by lmalave


Ok, I'll take your disingenuous approach of posting a quote and then claiming that I'm not drawing any conclusions :rolleyes:

So here ya go, from the Alan Guttmacher Institute:

....Because poor and low-income teenagers are somewhat more likely than higher income adolescents to be sexually active and somewhat less likely to use contraceptives or to use them successfully, pregnancy is much more common among lower income teenagers. Poor and low-income adolescents, for example, account for 73% of women aged 15-19 who get pregnant, even though they make up only 38% of all women in that age group....

....As a result of differences in pregnancy and abortion rates, poor and low-income teenagers account for 83% of adolescents who have a baby and become a parent and 85% of those who become an unwed parent. By contrast, higher income teenagers, who make up 62% of all women aged 15-19, represent only 17% of those who give birth....

....Conclusion

Sexual activity is now common among teenagers in the United States, and there is little difference in levels of sexual activity among adolescents of different income levels. However, poor and low-income teenagers are less likely to use contraceptives when they have intercourse (although a large majority do), and thus are more likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy. When they do get pregnant, teenagers from disadvantaged families are also less likely than their more affluent peers to have an abortion; about 60% of poor teenagers and nearly half of low-income adolescents continue their pregnancy and give birth. All too often, the poorest of these young women have-and perceive that they have-futures that are bleak. They see little reason why having a baby now will make their lives "worse," or, conversely, why waiting until later will make their lives "better."

A major challenge for policymakers is to provide these young women with realistic incentives to wait. That means guaranteeing them-and their partners-access to the education and training that will enable them to get good jobs, which, in turn, will give these young people reason to hope that their lives will improve. It also means assuring that family planning and abortion services are widely available on a voluntary basis to all poor and low-income teenagers who want to delay having a baby.

Efforts to prevent adolescent pregnancies and births must be targeted not just at those already poor or currently living in welfare families, but at all women at risk of poverty and welfare, since research shows that most young women who give birth as a teenager do not immediately go on welfare. Eventually, however, many fall into poverty, and very often, welfare dependency....




So while YOU may not have drawn a conclusion, the Alan Guttmacher Institute certainly has. And as the text above shows their position is clearly that teenage pregnancy is almost entirely a problem of POVERTY and HOPELESSNESS. Notice that the they're advocating "education and training that will enable them to get good jobs, which, in turn, will give these young people reason to hope that their lives will improve". THIS is the education that will REALLY make a difference, not education on how to put on a freakin' condom! Not that that's not a good thing to know, but I'm just pointing out that I think it's overemphasized in the debate over teen pregnancy.

Now you're makin' sense. :)

Backtothemac
Feb 1, 2003, 10:36 AM
Look, this isn't about statistics. This is about a moral, and religious issue to me. Period. If the class is taught from a standpoint of anatomy, and to dispell myths, and controception, that is fine, but the overall message should be that abstinence is your #1, best and only option to be 100% sure that you would not contract an STD, get pregnant, or experience other problems.


NOTHING but that is 100%. Nothing. My wife and I used two forms of controception, and guess what? We have a daughter. That is my point. Don't give all the information to leave out the most important part. Reality is that the majority of schools do not teach abstience. They do in the south (Thank God), but not in other parts of the country. I just think it is a mistake to let school boards dictate to parents that they will not give the child the entire truth.

And sorry, but to send a child to study hall is punishment. No way around it.

Teach the class for 100% knowledge, and I am all for it. Teach it any other way, and it is a violation of my freedom of religion, and thus unconstitutional. Period.

Oh, and just curious, how many of you actually have daughters now, at this point in your life?

dubbelhund
Feb 1, 2003, 11:00 AM
No children just yet. I come from a family with an average income. I wen't to one of the two toughest and most expensive colleges in the US on full scholarship. I am in the process of getting my dream job and as soon as me and my wife are settled (after buying a house) we will start thinking about having kids.

I have had plenty of sex before marriage, always used condoms, never gotten anyone pregnant, and never contracted any STD's and now I am happily married.

oh, and anyone who is too sure of anything creeps me out, especially if it involves religion.

lmalave
Feb 1, 2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by dubbelhund



I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. :)

Believe me, I am not arrogant. As I said, I am only speaking from personal experience. I am not trying to put the US down, It is just that I am chocked by the differences in the quality of life between the two countries.

Europe is just in general more civilized, I think. In many respects the U.S. is still the "Wild West" - still a country in development despite also being the home of some of the greatest human achievements.

Aslo keep in mind that in Europe, population growth has essentially stopped (and in fact the birth rates are below even the replacement level), which means that you are now seeing an unprecedented accumulation of wealth. This is a very different situation than the U.S. where the population has grown by 50% just in my 30-year lifetime, about 2/3 of that growth coming from immigration.

lmalave
Feb 1, 2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Teach the class for 100% knowledge, and I am all for it. Teach it any other way, and it is a violation of my freedom of religion, and thus unconstitutional. Period.

Hmmm...this logic makes me uncomfortable. I don't think that something being taught or done that is offensive to a particular religion being is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of religion. I mean, there are religions where boys and girls learning together in the same school would be considered extremely offensive, and yet we don't make it a policy to not do anything that might offend any religion. Education would be impossible if we applied that criteria.

I think a violation of the constitution would be something more along the lines of promoting a specific religion. So if in a history class a teacher started preaching gospel as if it was fact - that would be a violation (e.g. specifically promoting Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc). I don't think any secular teaching that is merely offensive to a particular religion would fall under the same category.

lmalave
Feb 1, 2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
I wen't to one of the two toughest and most expensive colleges in the US on full scholarship.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the two toughest collegest in the U.S.? Do you mean "tough" as in tough to get into, or "tough" as in having the most rigorous academic program?

In terms of "tough" to get into, in my opinion Harvard is still the standard-bearer as the most prestigious college both in the U.S. and abroad. I'm not sure which one I think would be the 2nd most prestigious. Probably Stanford, Yale, or Princeton.

In terms of rigor, though, I believe Caltech and MIT are definitely the two most rigorous programs. But I guess that shows my science/tech bias...

arn
Feb 1, 2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Teach the class for 100% knowledge, and I am all for it. Teach it any other way, and it is a violation of my freedom of religion, and thus unconstitutional. Period.


Not sure how else it would be taught? This article may have been an exteme example... but my sex ed when I was in school was factual.

Like I said, I don't think most sex ed classes are preaching that pre-martial sex is encouraged.

arn

sparkleytone
Feb 2, 2003, 12:44 AM
okay how about a quick poll here?

what age did each person here lose their virginity??

me...15.

FIFTEEN.

i wasnt a really popular guy, i wasnt the cool guy. i was just a normal guy, didnt get into trouble, very smart. i still lost my virginity at 15. the AVERAGE girl loses her virginity at 17. the AVERAGE male loses his at 15.

regardless of what you may be teaching YOUR kids, teenagers are having sex. they need to be taught how to do it safely and they also need to be taught that abstinence is the only true safe sex. kids SHOULD be taught how to use condoms. its just a fact of life. knowledge is power.

one of the main problems of sex education today is the only thing they teach is abstinence. thats like teaching your child that fighting is bad and wrong, but not making sure that he or she can defend his or her self if the situation calls for it. you'd almost rather the child get beaten or raped than use the necessary force to get out of the situation. a biting analogy yes, but principally the same.

Clark C
Feb 4, 2003, 02:21 PM
They only try to teach abstinence!?? They had condoms out at my college like candy. I think America needs to get under control. I am almost 19 and have never had sex. Nor am I ugly or a dork. I just don't have sex or perform sexual acts. I've been in plenty of situations where I could have but didn't. It's not hard to do people. I think society needs to shift gears, sex is way to excepted and causes way to many problems. For me kissing a girl is special, a big deal, love is supposed to be beautiful not dirty. I gotta get to class... I'll talk later.