Thoughts on current Sex-ed

[ProjectOmicron88]

PhaedraMcSpiffy

And besides, what business is it of yours what these people do in private, anyway? What do you have to gain by teaching them to fear their own bodies?

Because the alternative to teaching kids abstinence until they're old enough to obey their better judgment is teenage pregnancies and parenthoods.  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

I don't see how you can say that. If teenagers want to have sex, they're going to have sex, regardless of abstinence-only programs. Many of those abstinence-only programs tell the kids that condoms don't work (or don't work very well), and they fail to teach the kids how to use them properly. Then, they either don't use condoms at all (because they were taught that there is no point) or they use them improperly, thereby causing greater failure rates. That's why we have so many problems with teenage pregnancy.  

[Dronning Dagmar]

ProjectOmicron88

PhaedraMcSpiffy

And besides, what business is it of yours what these people do in private, anyway? What do you have to gain by teaching them to fear their own bodies?

Because the alternative to teaching kids abstinence until they're old enough to obey their better judgment is teenage pregnancies and parenthoods.

Do you have anything to back this up?  

[ProjectOmicron88]

Dronning Dagmar

ProjectOmicron88

PhaedraMcSpiffy

And besides, what business is it of yours what these people do in private, anyway? What do you have to gain by teaching them to fear their own bodies?

Because the alternative to teaching kids abstinence until they're old enough to obey their better judgment is teenage pregnancies and parenthoods.

Do you have anything to back this up?

A couple studies.

Now, I'm not saying it's the only solution. Far from it. But it's as good an idea as comprehensive sex-ed classes. And I'm not advocating this as a means of preventing pre-marital sex, since there's nothing innately wrong about pre-marital sex. But it's been my experience that the average teenager lacks in common sense. It's been that way since the dawn of time. Hell, even some adults lack common sense when it comes to matters like this. My point is simply that you can't discount a solution like abstinence right off the bat, at least until the parties being educated get a better sense of the world.  

[Dronning Dagmar]

It appears those studies back up the idea that emphasizing abstinence has a positive effect on students. It does not back up your statement that "the alternative to teaching kids abstinence until they're old enough to obey their better judgment is teenage pregnancies and parenthoods."

It also doesn't address the issue that those who do have sex (which does happen, even with abstinence-only ed) are more likely to do so unprotected and get STIs.

I couldn't access full text on the articles, so I don't know if these studies were on ab-only ed or not. The summaries were not clear. I know that many successful programs strongly advocate abstinence while still providing information about other options.  

[lizzah]

ProjectOmicron88

PhaedraMcSpiffy

And besides, what business is it of yours what these people do in private, anyway? What do you have to gain by teaching them to fear their own bodies?

Because the alternative to teaching kids abstinence until they're old enough to obey their better judgment is teenage pregnancies and parenthoods.

D'oh. That's the point of sex ed - to teach kids enough information about how sex and the body works, and how to prevent pregnancy, that if they have sex, they are able to take preventative measures!

P.S. I tried to read those studies you linked, but the texts aren't available online. However, two of them are from the same guy and from 1991 and 1992.

However, there are untold volumes of literature showing that abstinence only education doesn't work and is usually misleading or false, because it is often pushed as part of an ulterior agenda ("good Christian girls don't have sex"). What's worse, they fail to equip kids to handle sex if they decide *not* to be abstinent, which is what the whole point of sex-ed is supposed to be: Here's how not to get sick or pregnant while having sex.

While we may disagree about whether telling people abstinence-only till marriage is a good idea, I think we can both agree that lying to kids about how to protect themselves and actively discouraging them from doing so is not a good thing.

Links:
http://mph.case.edu/files/Abstinence Report.pdf - Case Western University, 2006: Abstinence-only education in Ohio delays onset of sex, but people who went through those programs are less likely to use contraceptives and have a higher incidence of STDs

http://www.nonewmoney.org/ownWords.html - In their own words: Misleading and incorrect information from various abstinence-only curricula

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/67798.php - Study: Abstinence Programs a Waste of Time and Money  

[Angst-Bot]

Kiyrugoji

The public schools of today seem to be spreading an abstinence only message when it comes to sex-ed. Maybe I'm alone, but does anybody else believe that this seems to... well, follow religious doctrine slightly? Maybe I'm just pessimistic.

It's not even just religious. It's stupid. No, that's not right. It's not even stupid. It's st00pid, with the zeros. : o

Really, I spend my Health classes laughing my a** off. "KIDS DON'T HAVE SEX OR YOU'LL GET AIDS AND DIE THEN COME BACK TO LIFE AND BE PREGNANT AND HAVE A KID AND ******** UP YOUR LIFE, EVEN IF YOU JUST LAY IN BED WITH SOMEONE ELSE, WHO WILL BE THE SAME SEX BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO SPREAD THE MESSAGE THAT WE BELIEVE MINORITIES SHOULDN'T BE TUCKED AWAY AND HIDDEN UNDER A BED. AND ONLY WOMEN HAVE VAGINAS, JOHNNY."  

[ProjectOmicron88]

lizzah

While we may disagree about whether telling people abstinence-only till marriage is a good idea, I think we can both agree that lying to kids about how to protect themselves and actively discouraging them from doing so is not a good thing.

I never said "until marriage", and in fact, I said the exact opposite, stating my opinions about premarital sex earlier on.

The results of abstinence-only programs seem to be a grab-bag, but that doesn't mean it's ineffective. Just depends on the kid, I suppose. It seems like a better idea to leave it up to the parents to teach their kids about abstinence and good common sense, and leave the explanation of how it all works up to the schools.

Personally, I've always thought the best plan for preventing teenagers from having sex without protection was to show them the grossest possible pictures of disease-ridden genitalia and explain in graphic detail the effects of STDs. The same shock technique could, in theory, be applied to anti-drug seminars, as well as anti-smoking and anti-alcohol.  

[lizzah]

ProjectOmicron88

lizzah

While we may disagree about whether telling people abstinence-only till marriage is a good idea, I think we can both agree that lying to kids about how to protect themselves and actively discouraging them from doing so is not a good thing.

I never said "until marriage", and in fact, I said the exact opposite, stating my opinions about premarital sex earlier on.

Sorry, my mistake. I have a strong association-from-experience between pro-abstinence and pro-save-it-for-marriage that apparently confused me here, even though you said differently in the very post I was responding to.

Quote:

The results of abstinence-only programs seem to be a grab-bag, but that doesn't mean it's ineffective.

In theory I think you are correct (assume abstinence only and no information or at least not misinformation about contraception, pregnancy and STDs); in practice I don't think you can separate the movements enough to be assured that an effective abstinence program won't contain incorrect information about other key issues, and so to be safe, need to give a more general sex-ed curriculum. (See the link about "abstinence programs in their own words", which includes several ostensibly non-religious programs.)

Quote:

Just depends on the kid, I suppose. It seems like a better idea to leave it up to the parents to teach their kids about abstinence and good common sense, and leave the explanation of how it all works up to the schools.

100% agree.

Quote:

Personally, I've always thought the best plan for preventing teenagers from having sex without protection was to show them the grossest possible pictures of disease-ridden genitalia and explain in graphic detail the effects of STDs. The same shock technique could, in theory, be applied to anti-drug seminars, as well as anti-smoking and anti-alcohol.

I still vividly remember pictures of smoking-related throat cancer that I saw in the 4th grade, so I have to agree with you there.

In fact, one of the pieces of my sex-ed curriculum was to research and report on an STD to the class (everyone got a different one). Even setting shock value aside, simply knowing that you really can get sick in a less abstract way from not using proper protection/abstaining is probably fairly effective.  

[Dronning Dagmar]

In my sex ed we not only looked at pictures of diseased-up genitalia, but we also watched a video of a woman giving birth. That freaked a lot of people out. I don't think it freaked them out enough though. Most of us still had plenty of teenage sex.

The tarred-up lung approach has been used by the anti-smoking campaign for years, at least in the US. I'm not sure how effective that is either. I have no data on that. Warnings on the package are not effective. Maybe pictures of lungs on the package would? xd I'm reminded of the movie Thank You For Smoking.  

[lizzah]

Dronning Dagmar

In my sex ed we not only looked at pictures of diseased-up genitalia, but we also watched a video of a woman giving birth. That freaked a lot of people out. I don't think it freaked them out enough though. Most of us still had plenty of teenage sex.

The tarred-up lung approach has been used by the anti-smoking campaign for years, at least in the US. I'm not sure how effective that is either. I have no data on that. Warnings on the package are not effective. Maybe pictures of lungs on the package would? xd I'm reminded of the movie Thank You For Smoking.

The point isn't to make them not have sex, the point is to show them what happens when you do it without protection, and to get them to use a condom when they do.

It's a little different from the smoking campaign in that the pictures aren't supposed to prevent the behavior altogether, just motivate a safer version of the behavior. There's no safer version of smoking, so people tend to rationalize it away, especially since in the US there's no (visceral) reminder on the box when the rationalization is happening.

And, I think some countries do put photos on the cartons - it looks like Canada and the EU have both at least tried it, and it helps:

Quote:

Approximately one fifth of participants reported smoking less as a result of the labels; only 1% reported smoking more. Although participants reported negative emotional responses to the warnings including fear (44%) and disgust (58%), smokers who reported greater negative emotion were more likely to have quit, attempted to quit, or reduced their smoking 3 months later. Participants who attempted to avoid the warnings (30%) were no less likely to think about the warnings or engage in cessation behavior at follow-up.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/8/1442

and

http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/research.htm  

[PhaedraMcSpiffy]

ProjectOmicron88

I never said "until marriage", and in fact, I said the exact opposite, stating my opinions about premarital sex earlier on.

Right. I recall exactly when you said it was alright for teens and young adults to learn about sex:

Quote:

...until they're old enough to obey their better judgment...

Which is really a much better distinction than "until marriage." Because not only is that just as arbitrary, it's completely subjective, as there is no magic age when someone automatically obeys their "better" judgement. You can use that to justify lying to people and ommiting scientific facts from their education at ANY age, and it's not even religious!

Quote:

The results of abstinence-only programs seem to be a grab-bag, but that doesn't mean it's ineffective.

Actually, if abstinence-only education is proven again and again to have no positive effect on the sexual behavior of those subjected to it, it is ineffective.

"The results of prayer seem to be a grab-bag, but that doesn't mean it's ineffective!"
"The results of snake oil seem to be a grab-bag, but that doesn't mean it's ineffective!"

Quote:

Just depends on the kid, I suppose.

If that's true, why not try to ensure that all kids get the medically accurate information they need to make good decisions about their sexual health? Since you just admitted that what really matters is the kid's personality (and not how much "sex is bad" is shoved down their throat) and values that matter, what point is there in trying to convince them all not to have sex?

Quote:

Personally, I've always thought the best plan for preventing teenagers from having sex without protection was to show them the grossest possible pictures of disease-ridden genitalia and explain in graphic detail the effects of STDs. The same shock technique could, in theory, be applied to anti-drug seminars, as well as anti-smoking and anti-alcohol.

Yes, and comprehensive sex ed. classes do typically show pictures of STDs and such.

But the purpose is not the sanctimonious and dishonest scare-tacttic you describe. It's to inform people. It's not "This is what will happen if you have sex because sex is dangerous and disgusting!" it's "This is what could happen if the proper precautions are not taken.  

[Koravin]

Dronning Dagmar

In my sex ed we not only looked at pictures of diseased-up genitalia, but we also watched a video of a woman giving birth. That freaked a lot of people out. I don't think it freaked them out enough though. Most of us still had plenty of teenage sex.

The tarred-up lung approach has been used by the anti-smoking campaign for years, at least in the US. I'm not sure how effective that is either. I have no data on that. Warnings on the package are not effective. Maybe pictures of lungs on the package would? xd I'm reminded of the movie Thank You For Smoking.

That was my experience as well. The message was that this is what will happen if you have sex. Sex is bad, and will kill you, don't have sex. They also showed us a bunch of birth control techniques that are way outdated and not really effective, leading one to think that 'safe sex' will just get you killed. My sex ed sucked.  

[ProjectOmicron88]

PhaedraMcSpiffy

Right. I recall exactly when you said it was alright for teens and young adults to learn about sex:

Which is really a much better distinction than "until marriage." Because not only is that just as arbitrary, it's completely subjective, as there is no magic age when someone automatically obeys their "better" judgement. You can use that to justify lying to people and ommiting scientific facts from their education at ANY age, and it's not even religious!

Notice how I never said there was such a magic age. All I meant was that it's better for kids who do not have good judgment to abstain from sex. That is far from unreasonable.

PhaedraMcSpiffy

Actually, if abstinence-only education is proven again and again to have no positive effect on the sexual behavior of those subjected to it, it is ineffective.

"The results of prayer seem to be a grab-bag, but that doesn't mean it's ineffective!"
"The results of snake oil seem to be a grab-bag, but that doesn't mean it's ineffective!"

Did you even read the links I posted about the positive effects of abstinence-only education?

PhaedraMcSpiffy

If that's true, why not try to ensure that all kids get the medically accurate information they need to make good decisions about their sexual health? Since you just admitted that what really matters is the kid's personality (and not how much "sex is bad" is shoved down their throat) and values that matter, what point is there in trying to convince them all not to have sex?

Because it's inefficient and impractical to separate the kids with good judgment from the kids without. The big point you seem to be missing is that kids will eventually learn on their own when it's appropriate to be having sex. Teaching an abstinence-only program (the focus of which is not "sex is bad") does not mean that they're going to be spending a good part of their adult lives fearing sex.

PhaedraMcSpiffy

Yes, and comprehensive sex ed. classes do typically show pictures of STDs and such.

But the purpose is not the sanctimonious and dishonest scare-tacttic you describe. It's to inform people. It's not "This is what will happen if you have sex because sex is dangerous and disgusting!" it's "This is what could happen if the proper precautions are not taken.

I'm familiar with how it works. I just have a side that likes freaking kids out. For example, any future children, on their 13th birthdays, will be given a few pictures of cirrhosis-scarred livers, blackened lungs, and diseased genitalia, with a card that says "Just be careful out there. Love, Dad."

Okay, maybe not exactly that. razz I just love the idea of it though.  

[Dronning Dagmar]

ProjectOmicron88

The big point you seem to be missing is that kids will eventually learn on their own when it's appropriate to be having sex.

And those that have bad judgement will "learn" that incorrectly. And none of them will know how to prepare themselves for sex because they haven't learned about any of that in ab-only sex ed.

I absolutely agree that kids without good judgement shouldn't have sex. But a) if they have bad judgement, why do you think they will care that we think that? b) last time I checked, kids don't get a letter in the mail telling them their judgement is now good, and they can trust their feelings about when to have sex, c) even if they did, they would still need the information about STD/pregnancy prevention to help in making those judgement calls.