|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:21 pm
La Veuve Zin Erasmasses I mean, people talk so much about abstinence-only failing, but that's because there's a simple way for it to fail: when teens have sex anyway. Does that mean comprehensive sex ed would do a better job at convincing kids not to have sex? I don't know for certain, but I doubt it. At best it opts out of setting any kind of standard, and just says, "well, lets just tell them about condoms and the Pill and see what happens." I don't think comprehensive sex ed means what you think it means. The "comprehensive" part means everything. I.e., teach them everything about sex. Including abstinence. Sex ed programs DO focus a lot on self-esteem and peer pressure, necessary components of the whole abstinence approach. As well as how to use the various forms of birth control out there, and peer pressure plays into that as well--girls may be pressured by boys not to use it, and girls should know better than to listen to some line like "oh, condoms don't protect you anyway..." or worry about birth control pills making them fat. I don't think contraception discussion belongs in sex ed, though. We'll, I waffle over it. Because I think the truth is, nobody actively wants pre-teens having sex, protected or not. Their parents probably tell them just to not do it. So when they hear people in positions of authority explaining how to do it "properly" (and, indirectly, how to defy their parents), that seems to give a level of consent that might work for 17 and 18 year olds headed off to college, but might not be properly processed by middle schoolers. Quote: Quote: Liberals love to set up this inevitability complex, all "kids ARE GOING to have sex whether you like it or not." Okay, fine. The problem is, we don't have the same "eh, what can ya do?" attitude when they contract STDs and get pregnant. When those things happen, we scramble to figure out why. Yeeeah, liberals do that, too. Nobody has an "eh, what can ya do?" attitude about STDs and unplanned pregnancies. That's the whole point of comprehensive sex ed: to prevent these things whether kids choose to have sex or not. I know people don't have that type of attitude about those negative outcomes, but my point is, those outcomes come from sex...and they aren't going anywhere because condoms and BC pills are part of the curriculum. There's another component to the decision to have sex, and that's getting tested before being sexually active. I think most adults will tell you that if they know someone is HIV-positive, protection or no, they probably aren't going to be intimate with that person...because the risk is too great.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:30 pm
Erasmasses Their parents probably tell them just to not do it. So when they hear people in positions of authority explaining how to do it "properly" (and, indirectly, how to defy their parents), that seems to give a level of consent that might work for 17 and 18 year olds headed off to college, but might not be properly processed by middle schoolers. Eh, you can't assume everyone's parents tell them to not have sex, or even to not have sex until they're married or out of high school or whatever. And even if you did, kids aren't taught about contraception in a manner that implies that they should have, or are having sex. They're taught "this is a condom, this is a diaphragm, this is how they work, etc." Because these things exist, and people use them. Teaching kids what the Nazis believed isn't going to convince them to have those beliefs. It's just a fact of life. So I'm not seeing how it's teaching them how to defy their parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:55 pm
La Veuve Zin Erasmasses Their parents probably tell them just to not do it. So when they hear people in positions of authority explaining how to do it "properly" (and, indirectly, how to defy their parents), that seems to give a level of consent that might work for 17 and 18 year olds headed off to college, but might not be properly processed by middle schoolers. Eh, you can't assume everyone's parents tell them to not have sex, or even to not have sex until they're married or out of high school or whatever. And even if you did, kids aren't taught about contraception in a manner that implies that they should have, or are having sex. They're taught "this is a condom, this is a diaphragm, this is how they work, etc." Because these things exist, and people use them. Teaching kids what the Nazis believed isn't going to convince them to have those beliefs. It's just a fact of life. So I'm not seeing how it's teaching them how to defy their parents. I think you can assume that for the majority of them. It's teaching them to defy their parents in the sense that, for many of them, the message comes across as, "if you're going to have sex despite protestations from parents, teachers, and other people in authority, here's how to do it." Explaining to kids that sex at their age isn't something their parents will support might deter some of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:36 am
La Veuve Zin Erasmasses Their parents probably tell them just to not do it. So when they hear people in positions of authority explaining how to do it "properly" (and, indirectly, how to defy their parents), that seems to give a level of consent that might work for 17 and 18 year olds headed off to college, but might not be properly processed by middle schoolers. Eh, you can't assume everyone's parents tell them to not have sex, or even to not have sex until they're married or out of high school or whatever. And even if you did, kids aren't taught about contraception in a manner that implies that they should have, or are having sex. They're taught "this is a condom, this is a diaphragm, this is how they work, etc." Because these things exist, and people use them. Teaching kids what the Nazis believed isn't going to convince them to have those beliefs. It's just a fact of life. So I'm not seeing how it's teaching them how to defy their parents. I find, having a parent who is a teacher and am thus slightly involved with the business of education, parents can be very illogical, senseless beings. For example, a program that was on 60 minutes was shown in class at the elementary school in town, to one of the higher grades. It was about the internet and potential dangers in giving out information online. The word "p***s" was mentioned, once or twice. "Pornography" (as they claimed it was) was shown in school. The parents had a fit, several people were almost fired for showing something that aired at 7:00 on a weekday on cable which was in the context of a learning device. One person was actually fired, I believe. This is in a school with 150 students. Imagine the prissy, conservative force of a high-population suburbia. When they group together and are misinformed just enough, parents can be very stupid and annoying things. They don't like facts or learning, unless they are their own cherry-picked facts to properly trim and polish their children into the little zombies they want them to be. Though I agree with you, facts are facts and thus teaching them is not wrong, the masses may not be so easily logical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
