b

This says you have to tell kids sex is fun and feels good. I disagree that we need to tell kids this

True.They already have that figured out as soon as they start touching themselves..
well, at least I did.

It's been a long time since I was in school but I certainly don't recall my teachers ever actively encouraging me to have sex.

Oh, but if Miss Abercombie ever had......

Very nice RickyP. If you already knew it, why bring it up in a class and teach what some would consider a morality based value?

Brad, I think the point here is that any form of education that aims to be effective must be something that the students won't treat with contempt. Drugs education suiffers from this very problem. Generally kids get taught ludicrously exaggerated horror stories about drugs in school which they soon come to realise are wildly exaggerated, and this causes them to completely disregard everything they're taught on the subject despite much of it being valuable information. Sex education is different of course, but if it doesn't start from a basic acceptance that young people are likely to want to explore their sexuality then it's unlikely to be effective. I don't necessarily have a problem with teachers pointing out that the only surefire way to avoid STDs is through abstinence, but this is merely stating the obvious and shouldn't be required in the classroom.

What is contemptible about what I wrote? I did not say tell them sex was NOT fun. I said don't say ANYTHING about that.

What is it that you want taught?

Yet drug education has had decent effects, while still bad, it's lesser than it was back in the 70s or so and tobacco education has done an even better job of reducing smoking. By the way, I don't remember any Math classes that were very fun, very factual, very dry, it's learning a subject.

Just bizarre to have a right wing attorney group suing parents to forcibly provide financial support to someone who thinks they are responsible enough to have a child. It has all the makings of awkward holiday get togethers for a long time to come.

What is contemptible about what I wrote? I did not say tell them sex was NOT fun. I said don't say ANYTHING about that.

What is it that you want taught?

I didn't say it was contemptible, I said that a successful sex education program should be one that won't be treated with contempt by the students. That means not forcefeeding them a certain morality.

The problem I have with the concept of abstinence education is that it's a clear and transparent attempt to introduce morality into sex education. It's there for the benefit of the parents, who want to ensure that their own moral code is being taught in schools, rather than for the benefit of the pupils. This much is obvious to me and it will be obvious to the pupils too. I tend to think that the moral message is going to undermine the practical lessons because it's going to be ignored. That's risky, because first and foremost we want kids to leave school equipped with an understanding of the dangers of unprotected sex and a knowledge of how to prevent them. It's certainly true that abstinence is the safest method of course, but this isn't something that should need to be taught in schools.

Look, I have no problem with parents wanting their morality to be conveyed to their children. That should be their own responsibility though.

Did you read what I wrote above about what is taught? ZERO morality.

You told me what you did not want taught again. What do you want to see taught as sex education?

Sex education should not include a religious based position like abstinence. Certainly, by age 13 if not earlier all kids should have a class that teaches the basic facts about sex, pregnancy, and contraception. They should be given facts with no attempts to indoctrinate them with the message that sex is wrong until marriage (which, if anything, they would rebel against anyway) You can teach them about how tough it is have a child when you are a teen, how much that would negatively affect their prospects, and that contraception is not fool-proof against STDS or getting pregnant. Teen-agers want to be treated as adults who can make their own decisions and while that may not be true, the reality is that if you want them to make responsible decisions about sex you need to get them facts, not lectures.

b

Very nice RickyP. If you already knew it, why bring it up in a class and teach what some would consider a morality based value?

I was agreeing with you that you don't need to tell teens sex is fun.
Not for the ludicrous reason you have, but because Teens, well pretty much all people past puberty, are driven to sex by desire. Naturally. And unless we salt peter their food ... inevitably.
Evidence clearly proves that the more complete that sex education is, the greater the effect it has on how teens behave. First, more wait longer. Second, those that do indulge their passions take effective precautions more often.
On the other hand, poorly informed teens assume greater risks.... and that results in more pregnancies for teens.
Abstinence education is less effective. Has been since the beginning of time. Note well that I didn't say, abstinence is less effective. I said abstinence education... Proscriptions against sex by church and parents, has never had the effect that a comprehensive sex education has proven to delivery. Namely, less sex, and less risky sex...

Given that it would be an almost universal sentiment that people want to avoid teen pregnancies, shouldn't we choose the method that is most effective in delivering the out come? Instead, Texas, and other state governments pander to the moral outrage of conservatives for whom sex is always a difficult issue ... but who also suffer from far more teen pregnancies in their demographic group because they can't get past their difficulties in dealing in a matter of fact way with sex.
I blame Paul.

Abstinence does not have to be a religious based position. I did not say anything about ANY religion. Including this one...

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/02/us/religion-based-on-sex-gets-a-judicial-review.html

I am not saying anything moral or immoral. Just factual.

bbauska wrote:Tell me if you think this teaching is untrue:
Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STD transmission.
If you choose to risk STD and pregnancy, there are birth control options such as Condoms, IUDs and spermicides that can be procured from your doctor or pharmacy. We, as a school, do not provide any of these items.
Then you teach the biological aspects of pregnancy, life creations, and STD transmission.

Clinical, and non-moral. After all, whose morals do you want taught? They are going to be picked up from home and other teens. (from Sassenach)

I think it's pretty close. Of course, some STDs are not exclusively transmitted through penetrative sex, or even sexual contact.

I don't have a problem with schools providing condoms (IUDs? no, they need to be provided by a doctor and are not necessarily appropriate anyway, given what I've seen happen in some cases), and frankly the distinction between a public/state school and a private school doesn't make much difference to me.

GMTom wrote:By the way, I don't remember any Math classes that were very fun, very factual, very dry, it's learning a subject.

Some people don't get maths. For those who do, it's actually fun in and of itself sometimes. And a good teacher can make it interesting (I recall Mr Paolucci at my schools did a lot of work to introduce a fun context to solving problems). In any subject, it's often the teaching that is the problem rather than the subject - and I despair of 'rote' teaching or confining a subject to a set of facts to be instilled.

It's not about making sex ed classes fun, however. It's about acknowledging the reality that sex itself is 'fun', and naturally attractive to 'kids' who are in or coming out of puberty.

If we want to 'discourage' young people from sex, it needs to be done very carefully. To explicitly make it an end of sex education classes may itself make it harder to do - especially as teenagers are not complete idiots.

bbauska

Abstinence does not have to be a religious based position. I did not say anything about ANY religion.

No, you didn't. But we;re talking about Texas. In Texas, who's pushing "abstinence as curriculum "? Athesists?

But then we started into what teachings I would teach.

Sassenach said it was a "certain" morality. As if only Jews, Muslim or Christians abstain before marriage. As if ALL Jews, Muslims or Christians stay pure before marriage.

My teachings would not give ANY morality, just facts.
Abstinence is the ONLY 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy.
STDs can be contracted in ways other than vaginal/penile sex.
STDs can last for ever.
Biological factual data on the workings of sexual organs.

To me it is a basic issue of not picking one morality over another. I don't want to inflict my morality on your kids any more than I should allow you to inflict your morality upon mine. The above does not have ANY morality, does it?

bbauska

To me it is a basic issue of not picking one morality over another. I don't want to inflict my morality on your kids any more than I should allow you to inflict your morality upon mine. The above does not have ANY morality, does it?

But then it wouldn't fit into the Texas currriculum.