Sexual education in schools

[moritz]

So theres a lot of coverage about Republican running mate Sarah Palin these days. The media speculate about why she was chosen by McCain and one major point, among the fact that her womanhood counters Barack Obama's complexion in terms of "making history", is that she is arch-conservative (while McCain himself seems to have problems reaching the right wing Republicans).
The media listed Palin's position on several (controversial) issues of society, but in this thread I'd like to focus on sexual education.
It seems Palin is against sexual education in schools and I find that hair-raising.
I don't know how sexual education is being taught in American schools but I think it is very necessary. In theory, I think sexual education falls into the sovereignity of the parents. But reality reveals that many parents are simply totally overstrained with this duty. And even if they take the duty seriously and try to live up to it, they often have less impact on the behavior of their children than they would like.
No, I think this isn't something a society can turn away from and leave to the parents. We are living in dangerous times concerning sexuality. The internet enables easy access to hardcore pornography, Aids is spreading, appeals to morality and good advices are often being ignored. Sarah Palin's own underaged daughter is pregnant. And while she is being gloryfied for not aborting the child, we shouldn't forget to ask ourselves: How could this pregnancy happen to begin with? This girl isn't from a white-trash-hillbilly family. Not from a hippy family that taught her free love. She's the daughter of a conservative Christian, the possible future Vize President of the USA. If such an educated person as Sarah Palin wasn't able to teach her daughter a thoughtful handling of sexuality, how are uneducated parents supposed to do it? I think Palin's case is the best example why sexual education is needed. We can't leave the sexual education of our children to themselves or to the internet.
The young Palin daughter was lucky; she has a family that has enough money and power to help her raise that Baby. But many young girls don't. Unwanted pregnancyies often lead to abortion and even if abortion was illegal, that wouldn't change. Nobody in his right mind wants that. Education can make a difference.

Any comments?

[christopher]

You raise some good points. I just have a few questions for you.

1. Do you think Palin's daughter was uneducated about sex?

2. As a sociologist, you probably know of studies on this that show the specific benefit sex-education in public schools has had on the specific pitfalls you listed. What are the stats on that (just curious)?

3. Sex education is a very broad topic. What specific things should be taught in your opinion?

[Josh]

Sex education is a very broad topic. What specific things should be taught in your opinion?

I don't know anything about Palin's particular views on this, but I just want to point out Mo that I think everyone agrees there should be sex ed in the schools (heck, I had it in a Christian school). It's just a debate over the content and the bias of the education.

Questions that are debated:

Is the sex ed pro-abstinence or not?

Should condoms be handed out?

Does the sex ed discuss homosexual sex or not? If so, how much detail and is the message neutral, pro, or against?

Should students have access to private sex ed. counseling that is kept secret from their own parents?

[moritz]

Sept 3, 2008 14:16:48 GMT -8 christopher said:

1. Do you think Palin's daughter was uneducated about sex?

I can't answer that question. Education is relative. When would we consider her to be educated? Maybe she knew that babies aren't delivered by the stork. But that doesn't mean that she was aware of all the risks she took by having sex.
I think one could make the case for her not being educated enough.
If this pregnancy was a wanted and planned pregnancy the matter looks differently. But Given the premisse that her mother holds conservative Christian views on sexual issues, we can assume that Palin Sr. wouldn't approve her unmarried daughter getting pregnant. So unless Palin Jr. wasn't rebelling against her mother, I think we can assume that this pregnancy was a little "technical hitch". Or as the McCain campaign put it: "Life happens".
Of course this could happen to sexually educated people too. But the chances are much smaller.
I can't answer the question without mere guessing on my behalf. But no matter if she was educated or not, I'd hold on to the thesis that sexual education can significantly reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Sept 3, 2008 14:16:48 GMT -8 christopher said:

2. As a sociologist, you probably know of studies on this that show the specific benefit sex-education in public schools has had on the specific pitfalls you listed. What are the stats on that (just curious)?

I'm sorry, I have to pass. I've studied the meaning of sexuality for adolescents but I couldn't give you statistics about the success of sexual education. When I come to think about it, I find that the real impact of sexual education on students is hard to measure.

Sept 3, 2008 14:16:48 GMT -8 christopher said:

3. Sex education is a very broad topic. What specific things should be taught in your opinion?

Good question. Above all, students must learn that sex isn't a game. It has consequences. It requires responsibility. Students must learn the dry biological stuff. This is very important. They have to learn all about the consequences of having sex. They have to learn how pregnancy happens, which venereal diseases exist and how they can protect themselves*. They have to learn about the menstrual cycle. Broadly speaking, they have to learn how sexuality technically works. The more they know, the more responsible they can be.
Then there are the moral issues (some of which Josh pointed out). And this is the tricky part. I think it's not the schools job to give a recommendation for having sex or being abstinent, nor when the right time for having sex would be. But the kids have to be neutrally informed about the possibilities and the ways of handling sexuality. They must be encouraged in their responsibility for themselves.
Should sex ed discuss homosexuality? OF COURSE. The emphasis here must lie on on the word DISCUSS. Children must learn that homosexuality exists. It's a fact of life. Since there isn't a societal consensus about many question concerning homosexuality (like is it a matter of choice or not? Is it natural or not? Is it immoral or not?), the children must be informed about the different angles one can take on this subject. They must learn that whatever stand they decide to take, they have to be as respectful to homosexuals as to anybody else.
Should condoms be handed out? This is a question with pros and cons. But since I think it is most important that ALL parents support sex ed I think condoms shouldn't be handed out in respect to the moral reservations of some**. But students have to be informed where to get (quality)condoms. The big problem we are facing here is the huge gap between how things should be and how things actually are. We can tell our children as much as we like to wait for the right person, or for marriage or whatever, we can tell them to be reasonable and not give in to the pressure of peer groups, we try to let them profit from our own experiences but the fact is - and this is what the Palin case reveals - that we can't do anything about our children going their own way. Teenage sex is fact. How are we gonna deal with it? We can't ignore it. What is the greater evil, the usage of condoms or an abortion? If I had my way, I would teach children that IF they decide to have sex, they have the responsibility to use contraceptives. But I understand that it isn't my business to tell other peoples children what they should or shouldn't do. So the school must be neutral here yet inform the children as much as possible.


*this includes contraceptives just as well as abstination.

**The different concepts of morality are a problem here. While Catholics find condoms immoral, I find it immoral not to take precautions. The spread of Aids in Africa is largeley due to the condemnation of condoms. I think the latter is a greater evil. (needless to say that the former is no evil at all IN MY OPINION)

[christopher]

Hey Mo,

I can't answer that question. Education is relative. When would we consider her to be educated?

Ok, the only reason I asked is because you made the statement in your first post:

If such an educated person as Sarah Palin wasn't able to teach her daughter a thoughtful handling of sexuality, how are uneducated parents supposed to do it? I think Palin's case is the best example why sexual education is needed. We can't leave the sexual education of our children to themselves or to the internet.

It seems to imply that you thought she wasn’t educated enough about sex, I’m just wondering where you’re getting that.

You also wrote:

I think one could make the case for her not being educated enough.

And that’s what I was inviting you to do. My personal thoughts about Palin’s case is that I seriously doubt her pregnancy had much to do with a lack of education. I suspect it had more to do with typical teenage attitudes, behaviors, insecurities, and more opportunity than maturity.

I was really interested in the stats because I really wonder if education of the type you suggested is really shown to make a difference. From an experience and observation standpoint, by the time kids get to an age where this matters, I think they usually know by then that the leading cause of pregnancy and VD is sex, and that things like condoms reduce those risks, and abstinence eliminates them altogether. However, as we all know, youthful lusts and passions coupled with an irrational sense of "it won't happen to me" often short circuit knowledge, reason, and moral conviction so I’m not so sure more student education of the sort you listed is really going to make all that much difference. Maybe it would, but how would we know? As you pointed out, teenage sex is a fact. I would be interested in evidence that shows a correlation between the type of education you described and a reduction in the problems you listed.

In your original post, you made some good points.

1.

In theory, I think sexual education falls into the sovereignity of the parents. But reality reveals that many parents are simply totally overstrained with this duty.

2.

And even if they take the duty seriously and try to live up to it, they often have less impact on the behavior of their children than they would like.

3.

We are living in dangerous times concerning sexuality. The internet enables easy access to hardcore pornography, Aids is spreading, appeals to morality and good advices are often being ignored.

I wonder if perhaps it’s parents that need the education more than the teens. Sex is a difficult topic and approaching the subject with a teen is very awkward to say the least. But if kids are not armed with tools to take control of their sex lives, the popularity seekers will succumb to social-pressures and the weak-willed will be taken advantage of.

For example, it seems to me that the majority of the pressure for teens to have sex usually comes primarily from the boys rather than the girls. Boys often feel pressure from their peers to “be a man” and “score” (if I may be so crass). It’s an embarrassment for a teenage boy to be a virgin so if they can't get the real thing, they usually lie. That's a pretty powerful external influence.

I think for girls, the pressure is often wanting to please their boyfriends and maintain good standing in their relationships, it may be more a matter of securing their relationships (of course, I’m no expert on the psyche of females and I don't want to broad brush this).

So for girls, perhaps education in setting boundaries may be more effective. A parent or a mentor could teach them methods of communicating boundaries clearly to their boyfriends without taking the “magic” out of the relationship. It might also be useful for girls to know how male physiology works and the things that set a boys’ libido in motion (I think most girls/women greatly underestimate the magnitude of this). Equipped with this knowledge, perhaps she can reduce the common tempters that “get things started” by limiting physical contact, dressing modestly, meeting publicly, and whatever other precautions there are to reduce the external stimuli for her boyfriend so situations never reach that “point of no return” so to speak. Also, it is helpful to voice her boundaries up front so there are no surprises or false expectations.

For boys, perhaps education about what kind of pressures to expect from their friends, and what it really means to be a man. Teaching them the kinds of things to say to their friends that would communicate a resolve to be honorable and self-controlled so they don’t feel like they need to conform. Valuing a self-directed future and freedom from the bondage of conformity might give boys a sense of ownership in their choices and make them more likely to guard their future more carefully.

you wrote:

The more they know, the more responsible they can be.

Again, I’m no sociologist, but I’d like to see the evidence that more knowledge (of the technical nature you listed) translates to more responsible actions.

As I’ve stated in another thread, I’m rather a minimalist when it comes to public education so the evidence for the value of adding any non-core curriculums to the syllabus needs to be compelling IMO.

[moritz]

Hi Chris,
I do agree with a lot of what you've said. But I do think there is a correlation between education and responsible action. This goes for action in general and for sexual action in specific. I've done a little research on the internet and found a bit of material I'd like you to check out and discuss with me. As I said, the real impact of sex ed his hard to measure, but maybe the following statistics give us hints.


The first table shows us the number of pregnancies of 15-19 year old girls in Europe and North America. The source is the German noneprofit NGO "pro familia". The numbers relate 1/1000.
You'll find the names of the countries written in German but they should be easy to understand anyway. The only country that has a really different name in every country is Germany for some reason. We call it Deutschland...



As the table shows, the number of teenage pregnancies in the USA is the highest in the Western world. 84 out of a thousand teenage girls are pregnant as compared to "only" 16 in Germany. Why is this? Germany is less religious and far more liberal in sexual attitudes than the USA. One would expect the numbers to be inverted. According to you teenage pregnancy has more to do with "typical teenage attitudes, behaviors, insecurities, and more opportunity than maturity". If that was true, we would expect the numbers to be more or less the same in Germany and the USA. Because teenagers over here are hardly different from teenagers in the States.

The second table shows us hte pregnancies related to education in Germany. A little discours is needed here: The German school system is diveded into three possibilities. 1) Hauptschule; this means 9 years of school education and the lowest level of qualitative education. 2) Realschule; 10 years of schooleducation and an intermediate level of qualitative education. 3) Gymnasium (not to be confused with the English meaning of gymnasium); 13 years of school education (it is being reduced to 12 years due to international competition right now) and the highest level of qualitative education. The word "Jahre" in the table mean "age" in this context.
So much about that, in the words of Larry King: watch!



This table reveals that 54% of the teenage pregnancies happen to girls with the lowest accessible level of education. 35% of the teenage pregnancies to the girls of intermediate education and "only" 11 % to the teenagers with the highest education.
Of course there is more to it than just the level of school education. It all is interwoven with social background etc.
But this statistic clearly indicates that the more educated you are, the less probable is a teenage pregnancy. This is exactly what one would expect, in my opinion.

The survey furthermore reveals that the younger a pregnant girl is, the higher the probability that she will abort.

Other numbers of interest: 73% of the 17 year old girls in Germany have already had sex (23% of the 15 year old girls). 50% of the first sexual acts of teenagers in Germany therefore happens within the age of 15 and 17.
Out of 8 pregnant girls within the age of 15 and 17, five abort and three carry out.
According to "pro familia" medics, parents, sexual education in schools, peers and the internet are the keys to improve the situation.

What do you think?



PS:

Sept 4, 2008 20:47:08 GMT -8 christopher said:

My personal thoughts about Palin’s case is that I seriously doubt her pregnancy had much to do with a lack of education. I suspect it had more to do with typical teenage attitudes, behaviors, insecurities, and more opportunity than maturity.

I think "typical teenage attitudes, behaviors and insecurities" are precisely the result of lacking education.

[christopher]

Hey Mo,

Those charts are very interesting and telling. I'm really terrible at discerning and interpreting statistics. Is the study you cited pinning a causal relationship between reduced instances of pregnancy and sex education (with the specific elements you listed) or just education in general?

And is the relationship between lower pregnancy rates and higher quality of education causal or indicative of other factors (like demographic) or both?

I guess its still rather fuzzy in my mind given the information you provided.

[michelle]

Hey Mo! Thanks for bringing this topic up. I found some information in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

"Evaluations of abstinence-only education and
comprehensive sexuality education programs
in promoting abstinence
To demonstrate efficacy, evaluations of specific abstinence
promotion programs must address a variety of methodological
issues including clear definitions of abstinence,
appropriate research design, measurement issues including
social desirability bias, the use of behavioral changes and
not just attitudes as outcomes, and biological outcomes such
as STIs [11]. Two recent reviews [12,13] have evaluated the
evidence supporting abstinence-only programs and comprehensive sexuality education programs designed to promote abstinence. Neither review found scientific evidence that
abstinence-only programs demonstrate efficacy in delaying
initiation of sexual intercourse. Likewise, research on adolescents
taking virginity pledges suggest that failure rates
84 Position paper / Journal of Adolescent Health 38 (2006) 83–87
for the pledge are very high, especially when biological
outcomes such as STIs are considered [14]. Although it has
been suggested that abstinence-only education is 100% effective,these studies suggest that, in actual practice, efficacy
may approach zero.
A recent Congressional committee report [15] found
evidence of major errors and distortions of public health
information in common abstinence-only curricula. Eleven
of the 13 curricula contained false, misleading, or distorted
information about reproductive health, including inaccurate
information about contraceptive effectiveness and risks of
abortion. The report found that several of the curricula
handle stereotypes about girls and boys as scientific fact
(e.g., portraying girls as weak or dependent or men as
sexually aggressive and lacking emotional depth) or blur
religious and scientific viewpoints.
A rigorous national evaluation of abstinence-only education
is currently being conducted with support from the
Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation [16].

Adverse impact of abstinence-only policies on sexuality
education and other public programs
Although health professionals have broadly supported
comprehensive sexuality education [17–20], increasingly
abstinence-only education is replacing more comprehensive
forms of sex education in the nation’s schools. Recent
reports describe teachers and students being censured for
responding to questions or discussing sexuality topics that
are not approved by the school administrators [21]. Data
from the School Health Policies and Programs Study in
2000 found that 92% of middle and junior high schools and
96% of high schools taught abstinence as the best way to
avoid pregnancy, HIV, and STIs; only 21% of middle
schools and 55% of high schools taught how to correctly use
a condom [22]. Between 1988 and 1999, there was a sharp
decline in the percentage of teachers who supported teaching
about birth control, abortion, and sexual orientation and
in the percentages who actually taught these subjects [23].
In 1999, 23% of secondary school sexuality education
teachers taught abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy
and STIs, compared with only 2% who had done so
in 1988. In 1999, one-quarter of sex education teachers said
they were prohibited from teaching about contraception.
Similar declines in school-based sexuality education are
reported by teens [3]. In 2002, about one-third of teens
15–19-year-olds reported not having received any formal
instruction about methods of birth control before turning 18."

The italicized portion is my emphasis. I find this incredibly disturbing.

There have been reports that abstinence only programs are not effective. I've included links to those reports.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html

And here's the report they are referring to. www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf

Personally, I think it's irresponsible for schools to teach abstinence only. Teenagers are going to have sex and it's unreallistic to to think they won't. I agree that it should be in the home that kids learn these things, but I also know that doesn't always happen (I know my parents never had the talk with me) and kids need to learn some how to be safe. And kids may choose not to use safe methods, but I think all options need to be presented.

Chris, I agree with you that parents should get some sort of training about how to talk to their kids about sex. I can't imagine how difficult of a conversation that would be.

[christopher]

Hi Michelle,

Thanks for the information you provided on abstinence-only programs

you wrote:

Personally, I think it's irresponsible for schools to teach abstinence only. Teenagers are going to have sex and it's unreallistic to to think they won't.

I agree, I don't know why anybody thought this was the silver-bullet for teen pregnancy or would even work at all. But likewise, I'm not convinced yet that other types of sex-education (like what Mo listed) work either. Maybe they do, but I just haven't seen any evidence to support this yet.

you wrote:

In 2002, about one-third of teens
15–19-year-olds reported not having received any formal
instruction about methods of birth control before turning 18."

The italicized portion is my emphasis. I find this incredibly disturbing.

I'm not sure what "formal instruction" means here. Is that like an instructor led class on how to put condoms on bananas or something? Or is it about the various options of birth control? I guess I'm not sure why this needs to be "formal instruction". I think most of us know from experience that kids are very resourceful in finding these things out one way or another. But perhaps parents should realize this and give their teens the facts themselves.

A long, long time ago (in a galaxy far away), I remember seeing a condom ad on MTv where this boy was ranting and raving about the "oppression" of the public message for teens to use condoms and this girl walks up and hands him one and says "wear one, or get none". That very quickly changed the boys' tune.

I think it's possible that ads like that probably have more of an impact than "formal education". Understand, I'm not in agreement with the ads' overall message, the point I'm making is that the attitude is what needs changing IMO.

you wrote:

I agree that it should be in the home that kids learn these things, but I also know that doesn't always happen (I know my parents never had the talk with me) and kids need to learn some how to be safe.

Exactly! So why is all the emphasis on teaching the kids in public schools rather than campaigns to motivate and educate parents to do this? We see public service ads all the time on talking to your kids about drugs, why not do the same thing with sex? (actually, I am beginning to see this happening).

The studies I've been finding lately show that the overwhelming majority of influence on teens sex-life is their parents. This comes from surveys from both adults and teens. Here's an example from Nation Campaign, a leading organization on reducing teen pregnancy.

www.thenationalcampaign.org/national-data/pdf/WOV2007_fulltext.pdf

It's a long read, but scroll down to page 8 for the highlights of the survey.

From pregnantteenhelp.org

www.pregnantteenhelp.org/articles2.html

...here is the advice given to parents:

Although the rate for teen pregnancies have dipped since the early 1990s, the United States still has the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of teen pregnancy among other countries of similar status. So if you are parent of a teenager, what else can you do to help prevent your teenager from getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant?

* Keep communication between you and your teen open so that talking about sex is easier to broach.
* Be approachable so that if your teenager has questions about sex or relationships, you can be ready with answers.
* Teach your family values and help your teen see how much they are worth. Explain that no one should be able to make him or her feel like they have to be sexually active.
* Encourage safe and fun activities and sports. Show them their strengths and keep education a top priority.
* Watch for warning signs of heavy relationships with the opposite sex. Also watch for signs of depression or a drop off in previously enjoyed activities. You may need to take further steps to help them avoid becoming sexually promiscuous.
* Teach your teenager the problems associated with unsafe sex. Show him or her the diseases that can result as well as the threat of unplanned pregnancy.
* Know what your teenager is doing and where they like to hang out. Make your home an open place for your teenager’s friends and encourage fun activities at responsible and respected places.

Finally abstinence is the only sure way of preventing teen pregnancy. Family values that promote abstinence as well as talking with your teenager over and over about the importance of abstinence can go a long way in preventing teen pregnancy.

I'm becoming more convinced that efforts should be focused more on teen attitudes about sex than the biology of it (although that should be shared too....by parents). I remain a bit skeptical about the efficacy and appropriateness of shirking this responsibility to the state through public education. And I fail to see any value at all in teaching homosexual sex (as was suggested). Parents and mentors are the key here and should be the target of any public campaign to reduce teenage pregnancy IMO.



P.S. Interestingly, I've also found that the majority of what is being classified as "teen pregnancy" occurs among 18-19 year olds (adults in our country). These "teens" aren't even in High School anymore nor legally in the care of their parents. Should this age range be included in the studies on teen pregnancy?

[moritz]

Chris and Michelle,
Thanks for the discours! Here’s what we agree on:

- Teenage sex is fact,
- Abstinence only programs don’t work,
- Parents should be the ones to inform their children about sex
- Parents often fail to inform their kids

And here’s what we (read Chris and I) don’t agree on:

- Sex ed in school is necessary/ unnecessary
- Parents can / cannot provide the children with the necessary information.

Chris:

Sept 4, 2008 20:47:08 GMT -8 christopher said:

For example, it seems to me that the majority of the pressure for teens to have sex usually comes primarily from the boys rather than the girls.

This sounds a lot like you never had the pleasure to be seduced by a woman… Too bad, man!

I agree that guys are probably putting more pressure on girls than vice versa. But you shouldn’t underestimate the drive of the girls either.

Sept 6, 2008 8:18:58 GMT -8 christopher said:

I think most of us know from experience that kids are very resourceful in finding these things out one way or another.

Yes, they are resourceful in finding out stuff. But unfortunately the resources they happen to rely on are often disturbingly misinformed themselves. I remember the gossip that was spread among teenagers that a girl couldn’t become pregnant if she didn’t orgasm. !!! Can you imagine such a thing?

You are putting a lot of faith in the parents. But the truth of the matter is: there are parents who hardly know anything about sex either. They had one partner in their life and a very limited amount of sexual practice. Some parents sure aren’t the ones to teach their children stuff about sex but the other way round. Could those parents be taught how to teach their children about sex? I wouldn’t rely on that.
Then there are the children who simply don’t want to have the sex talk with parents. I didn’t. My Dad tried it when it was much too late and I only found it awkward and didn’t listen.
And let’s not foget that there are also parents who don’t give a nuts nickel about their children. There’s a huge gap between how things should be and how they really are.

The statistics I provided show a corelation between pregnancy and low education. The more education you can get, the more unlikely is an unwanted teenage pregnancy. This statistic isn’t revealing the true effect of sexual education in school. There is no standard education on which to base the measurement. But I think it is obvious that less pregnancies among educated teenagers aren’t based on their knowledge of poems.

I think learning about sex is a bit like learning to drive. Sure, you can learn how to drive by yourself, by a friend or by your parents. But the extra education you get in driving school sure will decrease your chances of producing an accident.

I think this is self evident and I’m wondering why you are so oposed to it. Then again I read this:

Sept 6, 2008 8:18:58 GMT -8 christopher said:

*You may need to take further steps to help them avoid becoming sexually promiscuous.

Finally abstinence is the only sure way of preventing teen pregnancy. Family values that promote abstinence as well as talking with your teenager over and over about the importance of abstinence can go a long way in preventing teen pregnancy.

[/i][/quote]

…and it occurs to me that you might reject the idea of sex ed because sex ed might teach your children stuff you don’t want them to know. That it might encourage them to have sex rather than to live abstinent. That it might teach them that homosexuality is natural. Is that it?

If that is your concern, I can understand it. But I think it is very selfish. To abstain from sex ed might work for your children, who have a father that cares. But other kids need the information they get in sex ed badly.

Your skepticism of statistics is good and well (we have a saying in german that goes like: never trust a statistic you didn’t fake yourself), maybe you can provide the statistics that show the benefits of not having sex ed?

[amyleigh]

Sex education in schools I think sucks, I am 31 and can still remember being taught sex ed in 5th grade and they make it seem like not a big deal and we were taught about PROTECTION and how to use it which in my mind was like saying as long as you use protection its ok.
I do think they need to teach about the consequences about what happens~ Pregnancy, STD'S. It would be great if we could get the statistics of teen pregnancy down but you have teen idols like Jaime lynn spears who everytime you turn around is in a magazine making things look so easy about having a baby and its not! There was recently over the summer a tv show on and for the life of me I cannot remember the name of it but basically it was about teenagers who were couples who thought they were ready to face the real world of parenting, a chance to raise a baby, toddler, preteen, teenager and an elderly person for like two days they had to take care of each one. By the end of the show all of the couples ended up realizing that they were not ready to become parents. I think every teenager should go through something like that to ultimatley see that becoming an instant adult is something they are not ready for, and to enjoy being a kid and doing the things that kids do before jumping into the parent role.

Ok so I know that ive jumped around about things but these are all my own opinions. I know how sex ed was taught oh so many years ago when I was in school and am not so sure how it is taught now but with the sky rocketing of teen pregnancys its ovbious that something needs to be taught differently and us as parents need to step up and make sure our kids know that abstinence is an ok thing.

[moritz]

fair enough.
Sex ed just for the sake of sex ed sure can't be the right thing. It's gotta be taught effectively. How that can be done best is something the experts must decide.
Needless to say that I'm not a supporter of abstinence. I'm not an oponent either. Each to his own.

[Josh]

Sept 9, 2008 10:52:17 GMT -8 amyleigh said:

There was recently over the summer a tv show on and for the life of me I cannot remember the name of it but basically it was about teenagers who were couples who thought they were ready to face the real world of parenting, a chance to raise a baby, toddler, preteen, teenager and an elderly person for like two days they had to take care of each one. By the end of the show all of the couples ended up realizing that they were not ready to become parents. I think every teenager should go through something like that to ultimatley see that becoming an instant adult is something they are not ready for, and to enjoy being a kid and doing the things that kids do before jumping into the parent role.

Amy,

This makes me think of an anecdotal story I might contribute.

Every year at our school students from a special teen parent program come in to talk with our students about teenage sex/ teen parenting, etc..

Last year I saw a dramatic change in their message as opposed to the previous year.

Two years ago the teen parents came in and gave a strong message about how difficult their lives had become because of their choices, how they were thankful to able to receive some help through the teen-parent program, and then they strongly advised the other students to avoid being cavalier about sex (with a decided abstinence focus*). The students came away really thinking soberly about their choices.

Last year, something had changed. The student who came in made it sound like being a teenager with a kid was no big deal- that family members or the state would step in and meet almost all your needs, you could still easily go to school. Afteword I heard one kid joke, "Gee, I think I'm going to have me a few kids if I can get all those benefits!"

I was pretty annoyed after last year- mainly because many of those kids appeared to have been artificially sheltered from the natural consequences of some of their actions.

Certainly we need to help teen parents. But that doesn't mean others should raise their kids so they can do what they want- which some of their stories seemed to indicate was going on to some degree. But I think that's really rare among single parents, as the experience of many such visits bears out- most single teen parents are quick to point out that their situation isn't ideal and sound a wake-up call to their peers.

*Most of these same students made some very "politically incorrect" statements against abortion as well, and it was pretty powerful to see them giving personal testimony against abortion in a public school environment.

[moritz]

Sept 9, 2008 15:57:57 GMT -8 Josh said:

Sept 9, 2008 10:52:17 GMT -8 amyleigh said:

and then they strongly advised the other students to avoid being cavalier about sex (with a decided abstinence focus*). The students came away really thinking soberly about their choices.

There's something that bothers me here. It's a feeling I was getting several times while reading the different posts in this thread. As if there was something that isn't outspoken yet taken for granted. Something I think shouldn't be taken for granted. I agree with a lot of what people were saying in this thread but I want to get one thing straight:

Being abstinent is NOT the only possible way to avoid pregnancy. Let's not pretend as if we should preach abstinence for the sake of a reduction of teenage pregnancy. Abstinence is one possible way of preventing it*. And it isn't the best because it has the huge disadvantage that one has to give up having sex. I know we'll totally disagree about this.
I have the strong impression that some of you are trying to preach abstinence with the hidden agenda of a conservative concept of moral. Like saying: teenage sex is bad because it causes teenage pregnancy instead of freely admitting that teenage sex disagrees with your morality. Teenage pregnancy becomes the scapegoat for your moral agenda.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you. So let's talk facts: Abstinence is no necessary measure against teenage pregnancy! Teenagers can have absolutely safe sex - provided they KNOW how to handle the contraceptives. The risk of getting pregnant or catching a vd when using contraceptives correctly is virtually 0. All the reported cases of pregnancies despite the usage of condoms can be traced back to individual failure or lack of expertise. One more reason to soundly inform teenagers.

Of course you can promote abstinence but please be honest and point out that you do it because of your moral values and not because you want to rid the world of teenage pregnancy!

It bothers me that Josh says things like "their choices" without naming the choices. It sounds depreciatory. And then he uses the word "soberly" for those who "advised the other students to avoid being cavalier about sex (with a decided abstinence focus)."
I think this is nothing but arrogance based on supposed moral superiority. I strongly oppose that.



*and not even 100% safe as the story of Jesus reveals ;D

[christopher]

Mo, so far this thread has been very civil, fair, and level headed. But your last post (apparently based on impressions) leaves me with the "impression" that you didn’t get the fight you were looking for when you started this thread so now you wanna pick one. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but out of nowhere you start to say things like:

There's something that bothers me here. It's a feeling I was getting several times while reading the different posts in this thread.

and...

I have the strong impression that some of you are trying to preach abstinence with the hidden agenda of a conservative concept of moral.

..and finally:

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you.

Well thanks for the honesty there, but the rest of your post is quite unsubstantiated IMO. Why don’t you ask for clarification instead of writing something like:

Teenage pregnancy becomes the scapegoat for your moral agenda.

And…

I think this is nothing but arrogance based on supposed moral superiority. I strongly oppose that.

Now, regarding the assertions you made:

Being abstinent is NOT the only possible way to avoid pregnancy.

I don’t remember anyone in this thread making the claim that it was. Maybe I missed something. However, every statistic I have ever read (secular and religious alike) say abstinence is the only sure way of not getting pregnant. Every other form of contraceptive has some rate of failure, even if it is only 1%. Maybe you have seen studies we haven’t, but so far, I haven’t seen any evidence to support the following dogmatic assertion….

Teenagers can have absolutely safe sex - provided they KNOW how to handle the contraceptives. The risk of getting pregnant or catching a vd when using contraceptives correctly is virtually 0. All the reported cases of pregnancies despite the usage of condoms can be traced back to individual failure or lack of expertise.

Really? ALL of the them? You sound pretty sure of yourself there. I would love to see the evidence for that one. Sounds like a study sponsored by Trojan to me.

you wrote:

And it isn't the best because it has the huge disadvantage that one has to give up having sex.

So, let me ask you this. .. why do you think surveys (non-religious ones I might add) reveal that the majority of teenagers wish they would have waited to have sex? Does that sound imposed to you? Or like they think it's a "huge disadvantage"?

I will agree with you on one thing, and this may or may not come as a shock to you. I think it is entirely inappropriate (and indeed counter-productive) to impose one’s morality on others on matters like this. This is where I would disagree with the majority of Christians in my country. But I can’t remember one instance where Jesus or the apostles ever did this to people who didn’t claim to be in the faith. But I can think of instances where they spoke against it. Paul said:

1 Cor 5:12-13
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside[the church]*? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges.
NKJV

Christianity is not about imposing morality, but a relationship with God that transforms people into the human beings they were intended to be, instead of the devils we’ve made ourselves into. And a true Christian gladly, thankfully, and joyfully embraces the mind of God (including His revealed morality).

I want to answer some of the things you addressed to me in your previous post, but I’m going to submit them in an entirely different post so as not to confuse things here.

*brackets mine.

[Josh]

Yeah, Mo, where's the benefit of the doubt?

Teenagers can have absolutely safe sex - provided they KNOW how to handle the contraceptives. The risk of getting pregnant or catching a vd when using contraceptives correctly is virtually 0. All the reported cases of pregnancies despite the usage of condoms can be traced back to individual failure or lack of expertise.

And provided they're not drunk.

And provided they remember to have contraceptives ready. And provided they're not giving in to peer pressure to not use condoms. And provided they don't have impulse control.

Wait a minute.... aren't those last two things the very definition of most "teenagers" in our society??? (sadly)

This isn't a technical point... mostly.

[christopher]

Hi Mo,

Regarding the comments in your post dated Sept 9, 2008.

you wrote:

You are putting a lot of faith in the parents. But the truth of the matter is: there are parents who hardly know anything about sex either. They had one partner in their life and a very limited amount of sexual practice. Some parents sure aren’t the ones to teach their children stuff about sex but the other way round. Could those parents be taught how to teach their children about sex? I wouldn’t rely on that.

Actually, I don’t put any faith in parents and their abilities or even their sense of responsibility in the matter. What I do believe however is that parents should have the right to choose where, when, and how the topic of sex is introduced to their children rather than have it dictated to them by the state. Are you opposed to a parents’ right to choose? I would have pegged you for a pro-choice kinda guy myself.

There are any number of things related to parenting that could be better done by experts than parents (ever watch SuperNanny?), but that doesn't mean a society should simply turn their kids over to the state to mold and shape them as it sees fit. The thought hearkens my memory back to books like "Brave New World" and "Walden II". So where is the line drawn?

We can point to statistics that show 8% of American teenage girls get pregant (most of which are 18-19 year old ADULTS) and say this is an alarming trend revealing ignorance of sex education in such cases, and it may even be true. But what about the 92% that aren't getting pregnant? What does that reveal? Do they get no credit for avoiding it? Do the parents of that segment get no credit for bringing up their kids properly? In most institutions of learning, 92% is called an "A". Let's not overlook the successful while we're seeking to help the unsuccessful.

you wrote:

Then again I read this:


Sept 6, 2008, 7:18am, christopher wrote:

*You may need to take further steps to help them avoid becoming sexually promiscuous.

Finally abstinence is the only sure way of preventing teen pregnancy. Family values that promote abstinence as well as talking with your teenager over and over about the importance of abstinence can go a long way in preventing teen pregnancy.

[/i] [/quote]



…and it occurs to me that you might reject the idea of sex ed because sex ed might teach your children stuff you don’t want them to know. That it might encourage them to have sex rather than to live abstinent. That it might teach them that homosexuality is natural. Is that it?

If that is your concern, I can understand it. But I think it is very selfish. To abstain from sex ed might work for your children, who have a father that cares. But other kids need the information they get in sex ed badly.[/quote]

Actually, those are not even my words. That came from a leading website on the subject. It's probably my fault for not framing it more clearly.

You're question however, seems to suggest that you think my opposition to sex ed is fear driven. It is not. I have no fear of education. My main concern is parental rights as well as peoples' tax dollars continuing to go towards an already overfunded, special interest agenda-driven, ineffective quagmire of an education system that is continually trying to expand programs to further grow itself without proper justification. Sex ed is just one of many things in publicly funded education that I am not convinced ought to be there.

you wrote:

Your skepticism of statistics is good and well (we have a saying in german that goes like: never trust a statistic you didn’t fake yourself),

That's a good one. ;D We have one that says: "44% of all statistics are made up, including this one."

you wrote:

maybe you can provide the statistics that show the benefits of not having sex ed?

You want me to prove a negative? C’mon, you know me better than that. Do I even need a "fancy fallacy name"?