Sarah Palin: Sex Ed debate
 

She stated why she resigned and there were several reasons, to say she resigned for money is to assume something you do not know. She agree to the book deal before resigning. She has been getting political donations amounting to large totals which could cover her legal bills before resigning. There is no guarantee that she will get a TV show and anything else. We do know Clinton received large sums of money creating a conflict of interest for Hilary. We do know that political patronage is wrong. And we do know that Gore is full of it, with his -the world is going to end - while making investments in the solution he pitches.

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

I looked this up, here is a good recap:

Teen Life Q & A - Peer Pressure - How old do you have to be to legally have sex?

The decision? Nothing. The decision isn't up to the schools, just explaining the consequences. Schools don't teach people how to live, but how the world works (at least they're supposed to).
You support the teaching of the "morality of sex", then.
But still, the primary function of the age of consent is to prevent adults from taking sexual advantage of children. It's why a 16 year old can have sex with a 16 year old, but a 40 year old can't. I think we're getting off topic, though.

OK, I forget where I read this but someone said the best way to stir up controversy and get comments is a headline "Palin says Israel and China are wrong on abortion."

Gotta admit, that's funny.

"Unwed teenage Arab pot smoking couples protest in favor of evolutionist abortions"
"Gay Muslim Democrat takes guns from hard working Americans"

I don't think children can make informed choices regarding sex. I think the law agrees with me. I think children should abstain from having sex. I think children should be given an education based on the science of sex. I think the standard response from schools (when the question comes up) is that children should abstain from sexual activity - I do not think they should be told that ...if you are going to have sex, this is how you.... I think it is wrong for adults to validate/encourage, in any manner, children to decide to engage in sexual activity.

I feel the same about recreational alcohol, illegal drugs, smoking, chewing tobacco, tattoos and probably a few other things that don't come to mind right now. And you could basically substitute "sex" for any of those other words in the above and I would be comfortable with it. If you call that teaching "morality", then I am guilty as charged.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

Yes. Or, at least he wants to.

Understand, I don't have a problem with people making money - even a boat load of money - I just have a problem when they have a pretentious attitude about it or look down on those who are honest about their motive to make money.

For example, Ralph Nader. Given his rhetoric, what do you think his net worth is? According to this source in 2000 - it was $3 million.

Ralph Nader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The experts (read: people with advanced degrees in sciences that actually record and interpret data) all agree that the best thing to do is to teach children and young adults how to be responsibly sexual. While I respect your opinion, when weighed against the real data it would seem that those children that are taught about contraceptives and responsible sex practices are less likely to be infected with STDs and are less likely to have an accidental pregnancy. Abstinence, on the other hand, has repeatedly been demonstrated to have the opposite effect.

I'd be glad to retrieve some bookmarked articles to back this up if you'd like.
Due respect to politicians, but it would seem very few of them are scientifically literate, especially socially conservative politicians. You may be looking to the wrong people on this issue.

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------

Socialists don't care about profit. :thumbsup:

And you do know that this attitude is entirely, 100% at odds with Palin's views? Palin feels it should be the job of the nanny-state public schools to inculcate abstinence as the only valid means of staying free of disease and offspring, violating both science and the free exercise of parental moral education. And you're okay with that?

I don't agree with Palin on everything. I don't agree with anyone on everything. However, with Palin I know if we disagree it is not because we have opposing goals or objectives. I think her position is based on what she thinks is best for children as is mine. I am not saying that people who are much more liberal on this issue than I am are not thinking about what is best for children, some do. But, some have other agendas. Like I wrote earlier, I could have voted for Hillery Clinton because I trust her, even though I disagree with her. I also have respect for a guy like Dennis Kucinch, he seems to act in a manner consistent with his views, but in his case I think his views are simply too extreme - but I like the fact that he is a part of the debate.


Again, I am not sure that is correct. When I am asked about "abstinence only", and not given an opportunity to clarify what it means to me, it would come out as, yes, I support "abstinence only"

{added} From post #187 Will included a link to this question of Palin and her answer.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...1/1320417.aspx

Based on the question, I agree with Palin's answer.

So, you're changing your position on sex education, in this last post? Now you think children SHOULD be taught in school that abstinence is morally right. Before you thought the science should be taught in school, and moral issues should be left to the parents.

See, what I mean. All depends on the question. What the hell is "explicit sex education" any way?

I don't see the issue of children having sex from a moral point of view, I simply don't think they can make an informed mature choice. I don't think children fully understand the consequences of sexual activity. If you call that taking a "morality" stance, o.k. - I get it. Personally, I think sex is healthy, normal, enjoyable, and should be engaged in frequently between adults. I don't believe in making people feel guilty in any way about sex, including children. People make their own choices and what they do is their business. I have no problem with scientific based sex education in the schools and children understanding the human sex drive and what they will experience as they become adults.

That's just it, though, they're not going to abstain. You could lock them in their rooms until they turn 18 and they'd still figure out a way to shag. That's what teenagers do. Bearing that reality (this isn't opinion, I can back this up with fact) on mind, there's only one question: would you rather have them have sex with proper and complete sexual education or without?

ace: It's a moral issue for Palin and the social conservatives who support her. When you speak for yourself, it's not a moral issue, it's purely pragmatic (and I agree with you completely, by the way). When you line up in support of Palin, you're supporting something I don't think you understand you're supporting, and I don't think you understand is diametrically opposed to your own ideas. You really can't have it both ways. You can think your own thoughts, or you can follow a politician whose thoughts are different.

Maybe we're working from utterly different worlds here, and there's no reconciling them. I'm frankly gobsmacked that you'd have voted for Hillary because you'd trust her to do what is in your view the wrong thing. I can't even begin to get my head around that. I trusted McCain to do what I view as the wrong thing, which is why I campaigned for Obama. How trust can be a more important issue than that actual position the candidate takes is completely unfathomable to me.

Wyodiver33: drama queen much? You didn't even get any warning points. But you might, for loading this place down with your Goodbye Forever Because I Dared to Have an Opinion nonsense. Leave the drama with your mama and come back and talk.

Here is the difference and I will use alcohol as an example to illustrate what I have been trying to say.

I have no problem with schools teaching the scientific affects of alcohol, the history, the law.
In my view the decision people make to drink alcohol is their decision, I do not make moral judgment, nor do I see anything inherently wrong with drinking alcohol.
However, children do not have the capacity to make mature informed decisions regarding alcohol consumption, we have certain laws applying to children that don't apply to adults.
Schools should take the standard position that the best approach for children is to abstain from the recreational use of alcohol, and they should refer the child to their parents/guardian/etc. for more guidance on the subject.

I do not think our schools should adopt the approach of - we know you are going to drink alcohol so... - here are some complimentary shot glasses, here are a list of "safe" drinking establishments, here are some instructions for drinking games, and here are some coupons allowing you to buy 2 drinks and get one free, etc, etc.

---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

When I am against the social conservative agenda, I am against it. In this case if they are on the correct side of the argument - I will stand on what I think is the correct side of the argument. I have always had problems with "social conservatives" on many issues where they want to impose their values on others, which is why I have gone back and forth between being a Libertarian and a Republican. I think on this issue with Palin she has concern primarily for children. Some social conservatives have an agenda of wanting to take the pleasure out of sex and wanting people to feel guilty about enjoyment and desire - I think these people are small in numbers.

Does it matter? Her policy is: don't teach them how things work. Don't teach them how their bodies work, or what happens biologically. Indoctrinate them ONLY to not follow their urges. (That's the "only" part in "abstinence-only", in case you missed that.) I don't really care if her heart's in the right place or she's doing that for "right" reasons. Leaving aside the legislated-morality aspect of it, it's just BAD POLICY.

With no disrespect meant at all to the young woman in question: Grandma Sara only needs to look at who's living in the next bedroom over to see how well that policy works. I don't blame Bristol in the slightest for her unplanned pregnancy. That's a failure of parenting.

Precisely! The biggest problem is teaching abstinence-only. Kids need the information because most of them will not remain abstinent.

Can you provide any support for that comment?

I did not think so.

Ostensibly, she's not opposed to contraception:

Sarah Palin on Sex Ed | Sex and Relationships | AlterNet
Conservative Believer - Sarah Palin: News and Photos - TIME
Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education - Los Angeles Times

You should wait before answering your own questions.
Palin backed abstinence-only education - First Read - msnbc.com

Does not seem that you have read what I have written. I have no problem with children being taught about birth control from a science point of view, nor STD's and prevention from a scientific point of view. In a perfect world the government should not be in the business of encouraging or discouraging sex in any manner. One the one side the government should not be involved in "family planning clinics" or promoting "wait until you are married". I think both extremes are an inappropriate role for government.

If I may, each of these was published after it was publicly reported that her daughter had become pregnant. I would hope she changed her tune because she was able to realize she'd made a mistake, but more likely it was simply political.

The question isn't "what are your views on sex education".

The question is: how do you square that (IMO rational, sensible) view with your support of Palin's (radical, nonsensical, and--as evinced by her own daughter--failing) views? That's the part I don't get.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------

Wait. Surely you're not implying she's something other than a paragon of these so-called "convictions" we've been talking about? That she changes her tune for political expedience? NO!!

I don't think you understand Palin's views on sex education, and therefore you don't understand my support of her views more than I do Obama's. I will try to clarify it one more time:

The social conservative who says: God is punishing you (teenage unwed mother) because you had sex outside of marriage - is a person who is an extremist and does not have my support


the liberal who says: You (unwed teenage mother) are being punished because you had sex without using a condom - is a person who is an extremist and does not have my support.

Palin supports promoting abstinence to children but does not consider being a mother punishment. She does not make mothers feel guilty about the choice they made to have sex - she has in fact demonstrated a willingness to give unconditional love and support to a teenage mother and the baby. I have never heard her say that she is against teaching the science of sex. I think you and others are making that up or simply assuming she is an extremeist when there is no evidence to support that view. the media promotes these lies and myths about Palin, and I don't really understand why, I but I have the view that it is because she is not an "elitist" and is more an average American.

Pot, Kettle, Black, mister "I'm for sex-education personally, but also against it when my chosen leader says so".

I admit I have not watched her show in the last two weeks. Actually, didn't she have a guest host during the week of the 4th of July?

I know I have biases, and I admit them.

---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

It is subjective. But if there was some way to measure it objectively and assuming on one extreme is Rush Limbaugh at a 10 - on a scale of one to ten, I would estimate Maddow is a 3.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 PM ----------

I am never against scientific based sex education in schools.

Palin is, and you claim to support her policy. And you've ignored my REPEATED requests for any sort of explanation for how you square those things. My conclusion HAS to be that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I have never read or heard anything indicating that Palin is against teaching the science of sex in schools. If she has I do not agree with her.

Then you do not agree with her. She is against what she calls "explicit" sex education. She is for what is generally known as "abstinence-only" education, where the existence of sex is acknowledged and kids are told "DON'T", and that's about it.

The thing to notice is how strongly you've supported something you haven't read or heard anything about. Isn't that curious?

I am against "explicit" sex education in schools. I support schools teaching "abstinence-only" - it is the only certain way to avoid pregnancy and STD's - most children in school have not reached the legal age of consent and even those that have, in my view should not engage in sex until the age of majority. Schools should not encourage or validate children engaging in sex.

Yes you are:
Abstinence only does not teach anything but abstinence. I'll write that again: abstinence only does not teach anything but abstinence. It's entirely unscientific. It's the sex education version of creationism.

What you support is not called abstinence only, it's called regular sex education.

These are terms that mean things, ace. When Palin says "abstinence-only", there's a code she's talking in that you appear to have missed. I propose to you that it'd be best to learn the details of what you're hitching your wagon to.

Palin doesn't want the biology of sex taught in schools. She only wants to say "DON'T" to kids. You and I both know that's ludicrous and could never work, but it's what she stands for. And you've been saying that you're for that while also saying you're for regular sex education. Which is why it's been dissonant talking to you about this. Can you see it now?

I disagree with your definition of "abstinence only". In order to teach someone to abstain from something, don't they have to know what they are abstaining from, and wouldn't be good to know why?

Your view of "abstinence only" makes no sense to me. I have never talked to a person who is against teaching reproductive science at all. I have talked to some who are against certain human related sex education teaching methods, illustrations, books, demonstrations, films, etc. I also know some who are more conservative than I am and have problems with certain words or descriptions of certain things using common adult vocabulary. But I find your definition so extreme that I doubt you could find many who would actually agree with it.

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------

Oh, the secrete code. You are correct, I don't have access to the secrete code. My, my, we could have concluded this a long time ago, if only you had referenced the "secrete code" to begin with.http://www.topdownloads.net/section_...1091890404.jpg

I know you're being snarky, but that does seem to be the case.

A lot of the far-right talks to itself in a code that is really only understood internally. You end up with moderate-righters like you thinking you know what "abstinence-only" means, and talking about "your definition" of the term versus "my definition". It actually means something very specific to the politician promoting it, and you're not aware of that fact. But you're supporting it, because it uses words that are reasonably close to something you would actually support.

Open your eyes, chief. The evidence is blinking back at you that you've been had on this one.

That is why I explain my view. I tell you what the terms mean to me. Then I tell you that if Palin has the same view, we agree - and if we don't we disagree. I still don't really know what "explicit" sex education means. Is it demonstrations on how to use condoms, sexual positions, techniques, etc., what? I don't have a problem with teaching what a condom is and what it does, effectiveness, etc. - but I draw the line at demonstrations in school and handing out free samples.

It's not my definition, it's President Bush's. And it failed:
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs - washingtonpost.com

But YOU'RE the one saying you support Palin's policy on sex education! Earlier in this thread you said that, and now you're saying, well, if she says something other than what I think, then I DON'T support her, but I don't really know, and I didn't really know what I was saying I support when I said I supported it! And then why you like Palin is for her FUCKING CONVICTIONS!!!

You're incredible, ace.

Here is what you are talking about.

Community-Based Abstinence Education

It does not say the science of sex should not be taught in the schools. Local communities could request grants for this education, it was their choice.

And, I don't agree with all of this, but I don't agree with all of what is presented on the other side of the argument either.

---------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------

Thanks.:thumbsup:

I'm not convinced you know what the other side of the argument is.

The other side, the alternative to abstinence-only, reads something like this: Abstinence is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. As abstinence isn't statistically likely, however, here is all the information you'll need on anatomy, reproductive health, contraception, reproductive rights, contraception, sexually transmitted disease, abortion, and pregnancy. If you remain abstinent, great, but if you choose to have sex we want you armed with the most correct, up-to-date information so that the risk to you is drastically reduced. Our program is supported by American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the American College Health Association among many others, whereas Abstinence-Only as instituted by the Bush Administration enjoys little to no support from the scientific, psychological, and medical community. Moreover, our program demonstrates lower rates of STDs, unwanted teen pregnancy, and abortion.

We leave morality to parents and religious influences over children, opting instead to simply educate them on the facts.

There are only subtle differences between the position you outline above and mine and then I think Palin's position is again subtly different than mine. I would simply prefer schools not council children on sex at all, my preference is that they give the facts and send the children to their parents for council.

What council on sex do you imagine schools are offering? They're not telling kids to have sex. They're not telling kids to give oral. They're not telling kids to give hand jobs or to finger. It already is factual. It was factual when I took it back in the 90s, it was factual when my little brother took it in the 2000s.

On one hand you have right wingers who council children saying you should only have sex if you get married.

On the left we have those who council children saying if you are going to have sex use a condom.

I say give children the facts. What do the statistics say about unwed mothers who have babies? What percent live in poverty? What percent finish their education? Etc. What happens to the babies? Give them the facts and let them decide what to do.

What do the statistics say about various birth control methods. what are the known trade offs between the various methods, etc. Give the facts and let them decide. condoms may be convenient and inexpensive but they may not be the first choice of informed people. I don't want a teacher or social worker giving my son incomplete information based on the fact that the school just got a free carton of condoms to pass out to students. I want them to tell him to talk to me!

Which is absurd, right.
And what is wrong with this? Nothing, of course.

I think casual sex, even with a condom, has too much risk given the potential consequences. Until he finds a woman that he trusts enough to have sex with understanding the risks, even if their choice is to use a condom, don't. I would rather give him a subscription to Maxim or Playboy and a box of Kleenex.

You seem to be ignoring the qualifier: "... if you're going to have sex..." means that it's too late for Maxim or Playboy, it's going to happen. If they're going to masturbate, sure give them a magazine or something. If they're going to have sex, provide them with the understanding necessary to do it responsibly, which means contraception.

What % of teens do you think believe using a condom is safe and eliminates the risk of pregnancy or STD?

There is a problem with "abstinence only", but there is also a problem with "safe sex" for teens.

well this is going in circles, and is only tangentially related to Palin anymore

Who said it "eliminates" the risk? The point is that statistically most kids are going to have sex. Short of murdering them all and dooming our species to the history books of our planet, we're not going to stop—or even slow—teen sex. Understanding that as a virtual certainty, the next best thing to abstinence would be proper and responsible sex practices such as being tested regularly and using contraception. Condoms have a roughly 90-98% depending on who you ask. Birth control pills also have a high success rate (generally between 92-98%, depending on who you ask). STD and AIDS testing are nearly certain. These are not perfect options, but they are the best options available to sexually active individuals not wanting to catch something or get pregnant.
Not even a little. It's the best system that can exist.

Well, no, there is a problem with it still, and that is that teenagers are stupid and aren't going to listen to mom and dad.

But that's also the problem with abstinence education. I compare it to the kid with a cookie analogy. You tell a kid to eat his brussels sprouts, and he won't do it. You tell him to eat the sprouts and he gets a cookie, he's more likely to do it.

You tell a kid "no sex, ever, period" and he's likely to disobey, not only because kids like to disobey but because sex feels good and the kid is one big walking hormone with very little brainpower to stop himself from doing it. But if you give him the alternative of "if you absolutely insist on having sex, but you use a condom, you're less likely to face dire consequences," lets the kid have his cake and eat it too. He's more likely to do the activity that he was going to do anyway, but this time in a safer way.

No, I was talking about the latter, "safe sex for teens" (which I assumed meant comprehensive sex education). Comprehensive sex education is the best system we have.

I know. I was referring to the fact that even if you tell them about condoms, etc, some of them will still be stupid and not use them. Nothing you can do about it, really, because it speaks more to parenting and societal conditions than it does to the effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed.

I understand reality, but I would like to live in a society were children faced less sexual pressure. Moving in the direction of a social norm of teen abstinence is what my goal is. I am not ready to send up the white flag of surrender, saying - since we know you (teens) are going to do it...

"If you're going to have sex, use a condom" isn't pressure. Pressure generally comes from three things: peers, media, and biology.

It's never surrender to accept the truth, btw. It wasn't surrender when we all admitted that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, it was progress.

Us democrats or not-conservative-enough people are encouraging sex because we invest in condom companies.
Just like Gore and his Prius factories.

---------- Post added at 08:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------

Pressure would be telling them not to have sex. Or to have sex.
Try to remember your teen years. You're just an erection with an awkward body behind it, and that's really what it is. The only way to have adult sex only become the norm would be by curbing the hormones in our teens through some drugs.
It's a part of us. We're animals, we're geared to reproduce, and we're wired so that naturally, we want to do it most at 16-17-18. Women have their sexual peak later in their 20s, but the novelty and appeal of sexual desire and activity is something that's hard to say no to.
As a species, if we were wild, it'd be fine to have sex at 14, 15, 16, with or without protection. But it's the fact that we live in a society such as ours, where 18 is set as baseline for most things of adulthood, that makes it "dangerous" to have teen sex.
Sex is not part of adulthood exclusively, no matter how strange/wrong it may seem. Biologically, its there from ages ~13 and up.
So educate, so that they can do it safely. Cuz they're gonna.

If you (teenager) are going to go a party and drink, use a designated driver. Or, you (teenager) should not drink at a party

If you (teenager) are going to disturb a nursing grizzly bear, wear some good running shoes. Or, you (teenager) should not disturb a nursing grizzly bear.

The last one might be too hyperbolic to be applicable, but the first one is a good example. You can't stop most kids from drinking, so why not instill responsible drinking habits in them? The interesting part is that the advice I'm giving is really less nanny-state-ish and more libertarian. I know that if you're educated properly, you can make the right decisions on your own about these things. Forbidding them isn't going to do anything but raise the level of taboo.

If you (teenager) are going to experiment with habit forming drugs....

At what point do you say, enough? At what point do you say teenagers simply should not be engaging in certain adult activities? It would certainly be "good" if we encouraged teens to use clean needles and show them how to test for purity and potency, because we know some of them are going to do "drugs" anyway, but I simply not ready for that type of "good".

Give it up, Will. ace has a feeling about this. He'll never be dissuaded.

Pray god he never "feels" that I've wronged him. No force in the universe can prevent my demise.

This is so true.:thumbsup:

I focus on positive energy. There would be no "demise", there would be "assimilation".:orly:

---------- Post added at 06:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 PM ----------

I don't know who Kate Gosslin is, so Palin is winning.

I'd add opportunistic to the list, but yes that's pretty much sums up my thoughts on her.


All that's true. Only I see the right being far more interested in her then the left. As far as I'm concerned the left sees her as the joke she is, the right seems very interested in her and her plan... fascinated enough to send her and her PAC 100k's of dollars... so far.

That's not a simple issue. Most teenagers are going to experiment with marijuana, but with a statistically lower number will be experimenting with harder drugs.

If they're likely to do it, it makes sense to prepare them to do it responsibly. If they're less likely to do it, it makes sense to explain why it's a bad idea and reinforce the statistics. Just saying "no" to everything is so far beyond the outer boarders of negligently stupid that I'm considering building a time machine to go back to the 90s and start slapping anti-drug officials. "Just say no" is actually just saying yes to ignorant naivete. Not only was it a spectacular failure, but it demonstrated to an entire generation (my generation), that the establishment didn't have anything meaningful to say on the subject. For us it was a bunch of morons that couldn't grasp our culture because they didn't even try, all they wanted was to look tough on crime and drugs.
Even with a 10 million man dedicated police force and closed circuit cameras in every house in America, you're not even going to slow down teen sex, drinking, and light drug use. The only and best method for prevention is education. Always has been, always will be.

Hell, I WANT my kids to experiment with alcohol and possibly even mild drugs. Releasing them into the wild as young adults, utterly unprepared for life experience... I'm just not for that. Nothing teaches responsible drinking like a night over the toilet (I also can't drink rum anymore..). Statistically, the chances of anything really serious happening to them are vanishingly low; think about all the trashed teenagers in the US on your average Saturday night. I believe you can draw a direct causal line between sheltered teenage years and fratboyism.

You better believe that any kid of mine is going to know the entire anatomical and biological ropes when it comes to sex, too. I'm not all that adamant that they be some certain age before their first sexual experience, but I am dead committed that they have their eyes fully open about the consequences, and how to navigate those waters as safely as possible.

I also reject overly padded playgrounds, on the same basis.

split the Palin sex discussion off from the resignation thread.

Would you rather a kid get proper info on condom use, anatomy, menstruation, STDs, and sexual health, or not be shown anything deemed to be offensive by some adults, such as *gasp* vaginas, penises, and diagrams detailing their mechanisms.

A kid/teen is curious... if they don't get responsible answers, they'll find answers wherever they can. It could be porn, where condom use is very rare, and other unsafe practices are shown as "cool." Or it could be their buddies, who know very little, and often have erroneous info on sex.

Education gives you the power to make an informed decision. Absence of education gives you a much less-informed decision, because you might not know all the precautions/possible consequences/FACTS of life.

What about cigarette smoking? Chewing tobacco? How do they do that responsibly? In my view there are some things adults can do that teens should not do, I simply say sex is one of them. I would not want schools saying if your are going to smoke here is how to do it responsibly and I don't want them doing that with sex either.

I disagree. I think people can be informed and "just say no". "just say no" is a slogan, I don't advocate ignorance.

I think I am older than you, and what was a failure was the over the top scare tactics in the 60's and 70's. As soon as a person realized that a puff of marijuana did not actually turn them into a drug crazed raving maniac "the man" lost all credibility. "Just say no" is a much softer more realistic approach.

There are some interesting trends at work, and it is difficult to pin down the explanation, but we can not say, "just say no" to teen sex is not a factor.

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/g...gr050107f1.gif

Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned

This is an interesting report although a bit dated. You have to be careful when the use the term "sexually experienced teens" compared to the entire population. When looking at teen pregnancy, the biggest impact will come from addressing "sexually experienced teens" as compared to the entire teen population. If we segregate the groups, I would agree the "sexually experienced teens" need a more specific form of sexual behavior education, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the schools. Schools should focus on the ABC's of educating, not trying to mold sexual behavior..

---------- Post added at 11:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------


I agree. I want to be the one teaching my son, I want to make sure the information is consistent with what I know to be real. Like I wrote earlier, I don't want someone in a school handing my son a condom, just because...I don't want him thinking that just because my teacher/counselor/dean/nurse gave it to me, it is o.k.

It'd be nice to get a heads up.
Your view is irrelevant. What's relevant is the best course of action to produce the most beneficial outcome. We agree that unwanted teen pregnancies are detrimental, yes? We agree that STDs are detrimental, yes? As we both have access to the same data, there is only one answer. Views aren't a part of the equation.
I was referring to drug use when I mentioned "just say no". Anyway, I was told not to have sex until I was married from a very early age. My first sexual experience was at 13. I've never had an STD or a legitimate pregnancy scare in nearly 13 years of sexual activity. Am I not living proof that education can reduce the previously mentioned detrimental outcomes? Or am I a rarity? By age 19, seven in 10 teens have engaged in sexual intercourse. Teen pregnancy rates have declined 36% since 1990, and the majority of the decline in teen pregnancy rates is due to more consistent contraceptive use (as opposed to abstaining). It's education that will lower unwanted pregnancies, reduce the number of STDs, and lower abortion rates.
Anything is more realistic than outright lying, but is it really realistic to expect that saying "don't have sex" will result in kids not having sex? Not really.

Effective Sex Education

Teen sex can be fun, British health officials say - The Globe and Mail

I haven't read this thread, but I did see this article a while ago and wish that this was the sex ed I had in school.

Given our focus on "safe sex" it has not worked. The children born of teen mothers are far more likely to be in poverty than children born of adults. And there are more (absolute numbers and ratios) of these children being born in poverty today than during anytime in the past 50 years. These children get trapped in a cycle of poverty. This cycle has to end. Abstinence will if we commit to it and give it an opportunity to work. The Bush plan was never widely used and was a voluntary program.

Even with your knowledge and education if you did not have unprotected sex as a teenager, you are the exception. Given all of the current focus on protected sex, I am not sure how you assume it is working. A girl taking a birth control pill, which would reduce the risk of pregnancy, is not protected sex. I would never assume a teenager would have the discipline to actually practice safe sex. STD's are at alarming rates among teens.

STD Statistics - Teen STD Statistics

Here are some more facts, not feelingsSexual Activity

SADD Statistics

You can not blame these facts on conservatives and the promotion of "abstinence only"

Wouldn't teaching kids how to be in stable, long-term, monogamous, kid-free relationships be a better solution?

Uhm...since when is drinking or smoking basic human urges? We're basically all hardwired to want to have sex, so comparing sex to smoking or drinking isn't really fair is it?

No, as been mentioned several times before, sex education should be informing kids that abstaining from sex is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies or STDs, but IF they are going to have sex condoms etc. is the best way to reduce risk.

The only reason children can't make these decisions is that parents try to keep them ignorant and stupid way too long. You can't make informed decisions without information. What is so hard to understand about that? A lot of kids burn their hands on stoves, not knowing it is hot, but if you teach them that it's hot and will hurt, they are less likely to just put their hands on a red hot element.

Children who are taught of the consequences of actions will make better decisions than those who aren't taught at all. Why do you think there are efforts to get at risk kids into programs that tour prisons? It's so they know the consequences of their actions.

And yes, before it's brought up, some people will go ahead and do the wrong thing, no matter how well you teach them. We call them neo-cons

What I don't understand is, for example, how you expect a 13 year old girl to make an informed choice to engage in sex compared to a 23 year old woman?

Ten percent of 15 year old girls who engaged in sex, say it was forced - rape.
23% of teens report they engaged in drinking or doing drugs before engaging in sex.
70% of teen girls who had sex say they wish they had waited.


On a side note. I remember when Magic Johnson announced that he tested positive for HIV. He went on, kinda like an HIV tour, educating people about the disease. At that moment you would have thought that every NBA player, fan, or just people aware would have said, "hey if it can happen to Magic...". So after all that education, information, and it coming from a real role model to millions of young adults, what happened? Reported cases of HIV/Aid continue to go up. So, all I suggest is give children a chance to be children, there will be plenty of time for them to engage in adult behaviors and take adult risks as adults

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------

Why do people smoke and drink? Why is it almost impossible for some to stop onnce they have started? Why do you assume all humans are "hard wired" the same way?

Ace, what makes you think a teenager would be more inclined to abstain than to practice safe sex? Do you think it takes more discipline for a teenager to abstain from sex or to put on a condom?

It is interesting that 70% of teenage boys said they used a condom but only 56% of girls said they used a condom. If 70% or 56% say they used a condom I bet the number is actually lower. I am betting 100% know what a condom is and why they might want to use one. I doubt education is the problem. I do not think teens have the discipline to safely engage in sex. I think as a society that we send a message to teens that abstinence is what is expected and that sexual activity has risks.

One of the statistics I saw showed that those who are exposed to sexual content on television overestimate the sexual activity of peers. I think the social pressure put on teens to be sexually active is too high, and I think a permissive attitude from schools would make the problem worse. Between 1991 and 2005 there was a decrease in the percentage of teens who reported they had sex. Our goal should be to drive the number lower.

Like I have written several times, I don't want a school passing out condoms giving children the false impression that the presence of a condom makes sex safe. I have no problem with education, however schools are not the place to give guidance or counseling on how teens should engage in sex.

I am still not clear on where some of you would draw the line. Is it 12? 11? 10? I know it is arbitrary, but I draw the line at the age of majority - until then the answer from schools or other institutions should be - abstain. One more time - I am not saying don't educate.

The urge to reproduce sexually is older than religion and social pressures, far more important to the survival of the species, and will ALWAYS beat out both of them, on average, when push comes to shove.

Ace, you keep going back and forth about supporting this kind of education or that kind of education...point blank question here, with extremely limited weasel room:

Should schools give statistically accurate unbiased information about available birth control and STI prevention methods?

Should schools provide information on how to use those methods correctly?

Should schools provide information regarding disease transmission statistics, for the full spectrum of sexual behaviors, with and without various types of protection?

I am not going to trust the school to provide those two (edit: three) things, by the way. I have a daughter, so this isn't just theoretical for me. She is statistically going to have sex when she is a teenager. I want to delay this until I feel like she is mature enough, obviously, but I also know that as a father, I'll likely have a hard time EVER feeling she's ready. However, despite my gut feeling (and accompanying shotgun purchase), I want to ensure that when she chooses to have sex, she uses a condom--the first time and every time.

edited to add question about sexual behaviors

I remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs for humans, as I recall things like food and shelter came before sex.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I also want the schools to talk about the poverty rates of children born from single teen mothers.
I want the schools to talk about and show the consequences of STD's
I want the school to talk about what rape is, and the rights they have.
I don't want schools passing out condoms.
I don't want counselors giving medical advise on birth control pills for individual girls.
I want the schools to educate teens about the porn industry, prostitution, sexual slavery, etc., in a factual manner.

I have no problem with information and education. But the schools should adopt a policy of abstinence being the expectation for teens. I don't want a wink, wink, we know you are going to do it attitude.

I don't understand what you're objecting to, then...that's sex education. Abstinence-only sex education answers NO to all of those questions, and Palin's policies, which you claim to support, would not address any of those issues.

Also: If you agree that teen birth is bad, why wouldn't you like teenagers to be on birth control? You're applying logic to a situation that doesn't involve it, by making the statistically unfounded assumption that teenagers with easy access to birth control are more likely to have sex. The only thing they're more likely to do is not become parents.

My view of sex and marriage differs from Palin's. I have never read or heard of her taking a position against sex education. My view also differs from some on the left, simply in regards to having a clear and consistent expectation of abstinence. My fear is that some in the school system would treat the issue too casually for my taste. The attitude of passing out condoms and thinking that is a good thing is a joke in my view. If you give a boy a condom, he is going to be doubly motivated to use it. When he tries to use it, he won't - or he will only have one but need two. I think people wanted to paint me as some extreme religious zealot regarding sex. I have no hang-ups and most of the conservatives that I know don't differ much from the way I see it - including Palin.

That is a decision for the girl, her parents and her doctor. I don't want a teacher saying - "girl, you need to start taking birth control pills, here is a number to a free clinic that will hook you up." I want that teacher to say - talk to your parents and your doctor. Period.

I was a teen once. I went to a school with an above average teen pregnancy rate. My sister had two children before she was 20. I knew a person who died of AIDs in his 20's. Generally, I would say I went to a school that treated students like cattle. I have a 12 year-old son and I started talking to him about sex several years ago. When you think he has absorbed information, you later find out he really did not. If he had sex with a girl today, he would not fully understand the risks. He doesn't understand the risks in many things he does. Teens process information differently than adults do. Mentally he is not prepared. Will he be at 13? I don't know, but it won't be because of a lack of access to information. I don't want some uncaring teacher to undo what I am trying to do - they need to tell him to talk to me.

Okay, but you've got to know, that list of wants and don't-wants just gave Sarah Palin the vapors. You're VASTLY VASTLY VASTLY more liberal than she is regarding sex education. The gulf between your views and hers are VAST. There's just no other word for it.

I know you don't know what her positions are but support her positions anyway, but... I suggest that it might be wise of you to educate yourself on a politician before hitching yourself to the letter that follows their name.

You will have to show me, I have not found where her position differs that much. I know her view is that sex should come after marriage, but that is her view on sex in general and I don't care if a person is married or not. My message to my son is to find a partner you can trust. Trust is earned.

Source: Eagle Forum 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire Jul 31, 2006

From Wikipedia, the article on abstinence-until-marriage education, which redirects to abstinence-only sex education:
And just in case you still want to argue terms, from later in the same article, emphasis mine:
It's not just her view. Title V sex education programs are required to push the only safe option being sex in a marriage--not a committed relationship, marriage.

Not my job. I despair of anyone ever successfully showing you anything.

Of course you haven't. :rolleyes:

...Except where it comes to Republican politicians, evidently.

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