I think children should be taught more than the science of sex, for one reason, the more you tell someone they shouldn't do something, the stronger the pull for them to do it becomes. It doesn't matter if you encourage sex or not, children should be armed with all the facts, so they do not grow up believing/knowing what they hear from their peers (if her pulls out early there's no way you can get pregnant, anal sex is the only way you can get AIDS, etc).

I agree.

What are we calling 'mature'? There are people, under the age of 15, who are taking care of their family, working two jobs, raising children, and doing a number of other things that would make their maturity equal to or higher than mine. There are 30 year olds out there with the same mentality of your average 9th grader.
I was taught both in my high school Health classes. Well I agree that (mainly, because my mother didn't feel the need to say anything about sex except "An hour of joy, if it lasts that long, is not worth a lifetime of pain [if you have a kid]" was not really enough) I feel that parents should be teaching/discussing things with their children. 'What did you learn in health today?' 'Well did y'all talk about such and such.' But if the child has parents like mine, they need to be able to get this information from somewhere.

Yes, people are LESS likely to get diseases and become pregnant. I was taught there is no such thing as 'safe sex' now days, only SAFER sex. Because condoms, BC pills, and other things can fail. And as an adult, I am grateful for the knowledge.

---

On the side of the discussion, I wish I paid more attention to the news, because I know very little about Palin and/or her stance on sex education, outside of the posts in this discussion.

To be fair, it wasn't a major platform issue for her. As in basically everything else, she pulls the party line on it. It became an issue in the thread that this was forked off from because of aceventura3's paradoxical statements on the matter.

In my 6th grade sex ed unit (referred to euphemistically as "Maturation"), we were told that abstinence was the only 100% guaranteed means of preventing STD transmission and pregnancy. Abstinence was literally listed as a means of birth control, right next to the pill and surgical sterilization. Very clinically presented. Handling it that way got the job done WITHOUT some big moral "right/wrong, should/shouldn't" about it, and also without any hand-waving about "we know you won't abstain, but we have to tell you...".

Now that seems like a fair and knowledgeable way to do it.

No comment ace? You said show you, I showed you, black and white, without possible room for interpretation how your opinions differ in ways large enough that you actually are in complete agreement with the opinion she opposes.

I don't know what they mean by "explicit". Based on what I think it means, I don't support it.

I don't think children should get married. I don't think children should have sex. What adults do, is their business.


I do not support withholding contraceptive information from children. However, in some cases I have a problem with how contraceptive information is communicated to children. And, in my view no adult should tell a child to engage in any contraceptive method, they should tell the child to talk to their parents and doctor.


I don't support that.

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

O.k., do you know any person older that 13 who does not know what a condom is? Not know about STD's? Not know about pregnancy? Not know about abortion? Not know about birth control pills? Not know about AIDS? Have you ever asked, why they engage in unprotected sex? Do you really think the problem is a lack of information?


I think certain questions need to be directed to parents/guardians, personal doctors, or moral advisers. Schools and teachers should focus on education.

---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------

Gee, I can't take a day off every once in awhile?

when I was 15 i met a 17yo who wasn't really sure why he needed a condom - she just needed to pee when they were done. i'm not sure what he thought he knew about BC pills.

as far as the people who have real knowledge and chose to ignore, well, that's their choice. but people should have real knowledge, complete, and honest. that's all i'm saying.

Well on that note, perhaps we can agree that some people are simply never going to understand, and perhaps at minimum the schools should focus on teaching the ability to read before sex ed. Then they could come up with a special stamp for the guys forehead to warn the rest of the world that the dude is...let's say...not capable of understanding the risks and responsibilities of sex.

I still think both are important.

How's he going to understand unless somebody teaches him?

How about this one: you get your girlfriend pregnant. While she's nursing your child, can she get pregnant again? The correct answer is YES, she most definitely can. But you'd be SHOCKED how many people Stella sees who are bringing their second baby in for care who thought she was infertile while nursing. These aren't dumb people. Operating from ignorance, but who's fault is that? Theirs? Or the school system that has utterly failed them by humping a moral agenda in their education to the exclusion of any actual education?

There are people out there who think AIDS can only be transmitted by genital contact. There are people out there who think douching with coca-cola will prevent pregnancy. There are people out there that as a society we're FAILING because our education policy got set by fundamentalists rather than by educators. I think you're on board with me about this, ace... Unless your beloved leader's opinion just got more important than your own, that is.

so it's more important to teach them about how sex works instead of how to I don't know.. balance their checkbook? not spend more than they earn? save money?

how can they care about the economy or investing if no one teaches them?

Buh... Cyn, nobody's saying teach ONLY sex ed. Find somewhere on this thread anybody's said to skimp on the R's so people know how to work a condom. C'mon.

Many schools are starting to teach basic financial management. I'm for that.

Besides, over a long enough view, reproductive control and economics are irrevocably tied together.

I agree. However, condom use is common knowledge. In this day and age I find it difficult to imagine a person wanting to engage in sex that misinformed.

I guess the question is this: Can someone understand sex education, if they don't have a basic education? I would suggest that schools focus on a basic education first, if people can not read and comprehend scientific information they will never be able to understand the risks and consequences associated with sexual activity. Unfortunately, this is not the age of "free love" or what it was like thousands of years ago.

Whether you can imagine it or not, LOTS of people come to grips with condoms for the first time with no clear idea of their proper use. You think leaving a reservoir at the tip is common sense? Because it's not.

You and cyn... For god's sake. Nobody's saying to quit teaching math so we can teach sex ed instead! Jesus christ! Is it really that hard to admit you agree, you've got to pull this sort of nonsense out of your ass? Hey, keep on arguing just to argue, before long I'll start ignoring you outright and then you can claim victory.

I don't know what teachers you talk to but the curriculum is rather full, that's what all the teachers I talk to on a regular basis tell me. Most don't even have time to teach what's on that curriculum.

Something has to get short changed... and I'd rather that home economics is taught before sex ed is taught. Even understanding how much it costs to raise a child, since that's ultimately what is at stake here. Because even if you don't know how to drive a car, understanding that there is costs associated to owning, maintaining, and operating one is very eye opening to many people. They don't really go over that in driver's ed.

The easiest solution would be to have a longer school day. Most kids go to daycare after school anyway so why not have an extra hour of school to make room for the curriculum?

you can't even fire a teacher you're going to get them to work 1 extra hour per day? I doubt the UFT would consider that to be a good solution.

What about if we take the time we spend moralizing about sex and teach sex science instead?

I call shenanigans on the "Oh, noes! We can't teach condom use and also reading!" bs that's getting pulled out in this thread. Total diversion tactic. This thread isn't about the state of education in America. That'd be a good thread. That's not this thread. Besides, I know for me, sex ed was one unit out of several, one part of my sixth grade year. It's not like we're talking about canceling foreign languages. Complete artificial trade-off getting created in this conversation. Shenanigans.

As a graduate from Roman Catholic Parochial School, no sex ed, or condom unrolling demonstrations! So if you'd like to talk about it being a SUBJECT of science, I haven't an issue about it. You want to moralize it in some fashion. I do have a problem with it.

I had the science of sex as part of my health class which was split from my PE course. Another topic split from PE was Driver's Education, both were about 2 weeks held in the winter (not that winter's in CA are so cold). Thus, PE took the hit, but my other curriculum had over prepared me for college.

Now before any of the rest of the smart people claim, "on noes!!! you went to a religious affiliated school!!! you can't know what you're talking about, they are creationists, anti-abortion, and all those other bad religious things..."

No, we had many alternate religions and agnostics attending our school because the curriculum was rigorous and intensive. Look up Brothers of the Holy Cross, and you'll know that they encourage an extreme diversity of thought, including, "OMGWTF!" critical thinking!

this meant that we also learned about contraception and abortion. No critical thinking would be complete if the entire picture wasn't painted. Again, no morality in the class, just science of the body.

I also went to a religious school (Episcopalian) where sex ed was taught very thoroughly and very clinically.

Most teachers I know are usually on campus an extra hour or two anyway to be available for students seeking extra help or they are working on lesson plans. I don't think having a longer school day is all that far fetched

as far as being on campus, I'm not sure when this "health" or "sex science" would be taught, 10th grade? younger?

So if they are working on lesson plans, they will work on lesson plans 1 more hour later. you'd be interested in working that extra 1 hour every day in your job without any increase in pay?

available to students AFTER class for extra help is not the same as having to continue to teach for an extra 1 hour every day.

Again, I've given an example of how it would or could work without disrupting the total time period. but you're interested in increasing the total hours. Most states are 180 school days a year, adding 1 hour to that, is working 4.5 extra weeks based on a 40 hour work week. You still interested in working 4.5 extra weeks without an increase in pay?

I would vote in a heartbeat to increase school levy's so teachers could have an increase in pay to stay teach an extra hour. Most people would.

There's already time blocked out for it. It's just that what's getting taught is abstinence-only! We don't need a change in schedule, just in content!

What's so hard about this?

Nothing for me. I've never said that it should be abstinence only, that's Ace.

As far as time, I don't know what's in public school curriculum. I know that they don't do a good job in educating in comparison to private school institutions.

I still am an advocate for including more about home economics than sex/health ed. (not the laundry and cooking parts) because no one is taught how to manage their money.

We keep tap dancing around the issue - To me children should abstain from sex. I have no problem with sex education, in fact you could easily come up with a curriculum that I would support. I think we both agree that abstinence is the best way to go for children. To me it is the same with many issues, another example is steroids. I have no problem with teaching children about steroids in a factual, scientific manner, however children should not use steroids unless there is a medical reason to. No school/coach/clinic/etc., should condone/encourage/turn a blind eye/wink, wink we know you are going to do it, so here is how to do it "safely"... to the use of steroids.

We agree on this.

Here's the question: Is the fact that you and I think they shouldn't have sex going to stop them from having sex? Your and my personal kids, maybe, but we're talking about educational policy here.

I have to think the answer to that question is a ringing NO. Look, if it didn't work with Bristol Palin, it doesn't work.

Given that, wouldn't you rather they know what they need to know to do what (statistically, inevitably) they're going to do as safely as possible?

Plus: they'll be grown-up some day. How early is too early to teach them how to have sex as responsibly as possible?

DON'T fall back to the "it's not safe, it's not responsible" canard--I deliberately worded it "as safely as possible."

DON'T fall back on the "We oughta be teaching them to balance a checkbook instead of how to fuck" canard, because that's entirely aside from what we're talking about.

My question is: given you're not going to be able to stop teenagers from having sex, generally speaking and granting some exceptions, wouldn't you prefer they know how best to protect themselves from the risks of it?

Condoneing/encouraging/turning a blind eye to someone handing out steroids is illegal. Teaching kids about the risks and proper preventatives of std's and pregnancy isn't.

What about referrals to "free clinics"? What about recommendations to use certain contraceptives rather than telling children to talk to parents or their personal doctor? What about children being given misinformation about "safe sex"? What about children not being taught about statutory rape? What about children not being taught the dire statistic of what happens to children born from teen mothers? What about children not being taught about the potential side effects of birth control pills? What about the fact that sexual harassment is illegal? In the minds of some liberals has long as they show a kid how to use a condom and give some free samples they think they have done their job.

I think that everyone agrees that those things should be taught, and in most cases are taught. I really don't think that liberals want to just give out free condoms and a few mornig after pills and call it a day. But what do i know I'm an independant

Yes. Adults have a major influence on the behavior of children. If we act like we don't care you get one result. If you act like you care you get another. I think we should act like we care.

I don't come to that conclusion. I am against suicide. I think adults can do things to prevent a child from committing suicide. If the child of a prominent person vocally against suicide, commits suicide, that does not mean we stop trying to stop teen suicide.

I don't get your logic here at all, or your point.

"As safely as possible"? In my view teens generally do not have the capacity to make adult decisions. I think engaging in sex is an adult decision. I don't think teens should do many things adults can do. In my view there is no "safe" way for teens to engage in sex, given our current environment. Even from a non-STD or pregnancy perspective - how is a teen to protect their privacy with a "partner" with a video camera in their phone? Teens need to abstain for sex.

I started teaching my son as soon as he started potty training, and it won't stop until "the student becomes the master". Every parent needs to have this attitude. It ain't the responsibility of the school. Perhaps what we really need is mandatory sex education for parents, in particular how to teach their children.

Okay. Fine. You've flip-flopped again, ace.

I'm done with this thread until there's somebody rational to discuss this with.

Adults influence their children, yes. But unless you want them to turn into adults who are unprepared for the world, the muzzle has to loosen up sometime. Do you really think parents should have cameras or spies watching their child's every move in order to show they care?

Having been both a parent and a child, here's my take.

My parents loved me. This I knew. I was raised in a very disciplined environment, but acted out and did things no child should be doing at a very young age. I was pregnant twice in my teen years. My parents were upper-middle class and my father wore a suit. Love simply wasn't enough. There are so many factors involved, i.e. I was a teenager who felt misunderstood and alienated much like most other teenagers. All the teens I've talked to over the years, through today, indicate very similar patterns. When we become promiscuous and sexually active at such a young age, it was because we wanted to feel loved and special and we craved positive attention. Although I don't have any meaningless stats to report, I can confidently say this sentiment is not uncommon amongst teen girls.

As a parent myself, I love my children. I consider myself somewhat of a disciplinarian, but I give my girls (youngest now 15-1/2) freedoms as they earn more and more of my trust. I think I just lucked out with my oldest, who's 26), but none of them are or have been pregnant and I have confidence that my teens will not have sex until they're in college. Is it because I love them? I don't think so. It's because I've been extremely open with them and taught them to love themselves first so that they don't seek affirmations (can't think of the effing word!) from guys. Of course there's more to it, but I believe that's a key part of their education that's missing.

While I realize this may not be an easy task for many parents, allowing the schools to teach your kids about self-esteem and other related issues would be equally important. Maybe the parents could attend an orientation so they could reinforce at home what's taught at school.

I agree with ratbastid that sex ed should be handled at school. Most schools have PE or study hall or something that can be sacrificed for an hour or two a week.

I have neglected teen boys from my soapbox, but I'm sure someone has a better experience to offer as far as what they need to know about how to treat girls/women and respect themselves. Sex ed ain't only about using condoms and removing cum stains.

Where did that come from?

I am not sure how we disagree. I think children should abstain from sex.

Also, I am not clear on where some of you draw the line? Are we all talking about children who may be 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17?

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------

Perhaps it was a typo, so it would have been clearer if you had defined the perceived flip flop, rather than engaging in a tantrum?

Your post:

What you said here indicates that parents alone are responsible for the result when many parents simply aren't capable of appropriate influence.

My opinion is irrelevant. If I thought they should have sex, I sure as hell would want them armed. If I thought they shouldn't have sex, I still want them armed since we can't control their every move.

Children would fit into that category, yes. Under the age of 18, as far as I'm concerned.

Palin's position matters little at this point.

What is pleasing to me is Obama fulfilling another campaign promise and eliminating all abstinence only funding from the federal budget, after throwing $1.5 billion at such programs over the last eight years for purely ideological partisan purposes....despite no evidence of success of such programs.

I guess I can be specific since I have a 12 year old son.

I have no intention of spying on him, or even restrict his freedom to make his own decisions. He knows what I expect, he knows right from wrong, he understands that all of his actions will have consequences. Most importantly, he understands that I am in his corner no matter what. I trust him and I treat him like I trust him. He is not and will not be confused about sexuality as long as I can help him.

Palin's daughter had a baby. Palin gave her daughter unconditional love and support. Even given the charges of hypocrisy, potential political costs, etc. Palin stood with her daughter, the baby, with pride. Palin will always have my respect for that.


I disagree, I think your opinion is the most important one to your children. If they don't know your opinion they will form their own or be influenced by other sources, and some will simply weigh your opinion and come to their own conclusion, but it matters. I don't try to control my son. When we talk about issues, I talk to him, but I mostly ask open ended questions. It is interesting to me how at some point he will always ask what I think or what I would do. I tell him about mistakes I have made, why it was a mistake and what happened as a consequence.

---------- Post added at 12:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------

For the record here is "Abstinence only" cut by Obama, some I agree with some I don't, I would modify the program rather than eliminate it:

Guidance Regarding Curriculum Content

I am not clear on what obama's "Pregnancy Prevention" budget is for, do you?

Obama Budget Eliminates Funding for Abstinence-Only Sex Education - On Women (usnews.com)

I had no idea how to properly put on a condom until I was taught in the seventh grade sex ed class. It wasn't THAT long ago. At 13 I may not have known what to do yet but I knew damn sure I wanted to do... well... something and I'm glad they started to prepair me for that.

Dude, what took so long? I remember I was about 6 or 7 walking with my older brother, he saw a used condom, picked it up with a stick and told me that before you have sex with a girl get one of these and put it on (excuse the vulgarity, but it is what he said) your dick. I said why? He said so she won't have a baby and so you don't get VD. I said oh, and we kept walking. I pretty much understood what he meant.

I knew what they were but I had no idea how to properly (this being the important word) put one on.

This guy is Obama's safe schools czar:

Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job - Political News - FOXNews.com

I don't think casual attitudes regarding illegal drugs/underage drinking/statutory rape/15 year old children having casual sex with people they meet in a bathroom is o.k. He should resign.