Get ready for the faked-up backlash to Patrick’s decision to refuse “abstinence only” education funds: Fox25’s Joe Battenfeld just did an absolute hatchet-job on the Governor, deliberately conflating teaching “abstinence” in a comprehensive sex-ed curriculum with “abstinence only“, the latter of which is dishonest, a waste of money and doesn’t work. Of course, Battenfeld doesn’t mention the actual research that is the basis of the Governor’s decision, instead only saying “the governor’s supporters say xyz”.
That is just contemptible reporting. I know, I know, “What did you expect?” Sorry, but I don’t take kindly to having my intelligence insulted by someone who’s getting paid to give the news.
Battenfeld should apologize to his viewership, the Governor, and Rep. Ruth Balser, also hit in this nasty pseudo-journalistic drive-by.
Why do you get so worked up over somebody teaching that the only proven way not to get AIDS* or other sexually transmitted disease, or to prevent teenage pregnancy is to abstain from sex? It’s pretty much a fact. Condoms break.
<
p>
The only way to do the above is to abstain from sex. Why not teach that. Why do we have to teach kids (and teaching sex ed to 10 to 12 year olds or younger is teaching kids) about sex?
<
p>
Why are you so against that? I don’t get it.
<
p>
*(on AIDS, yes drug use and blood transfusions are a transmission mechanism. But the latter should be discouraged, and the former is less of a risk than it was in the early 80s when HIV infection ran rampant through the hemophiliac community)
that is, assuming that opposing “abstinence only” education means one opposes teaching the wisdom in abstaining as part of a well-rounded sex ed curriculum. i think it’s great to tell kids the positive reasons for delaying sex. but they must also be taught how to have sex safely for when they do decide to have it. even if that doesn’t happen until they’re 20 or 50. because sometimes sex just happens, and even adults don’t run out and read up on what they should know and do before having sex for the first time. you want to arm college kids with concealed weapons. i think it is much more vital that they be armed with knowledge on safe sex and family planning, so it is there in their brain at the crucial moment.
destigmatize it and make it alright for them to do? I’m being serious here. If you give a 12 year old access to condoms and tell him how to use them, isn’t he going to find a way to use them?
<
p>
I have no problem teaching 16-18 year olds sex ed. Before that age, it is just too young in my opinion.
If every teenager wore a condom during sex, it would dramatically decrease teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infectioon rates…how is that a bad thing?
<
p>
“If you give a 12 year old access to condoms and tell him how to use them, isn’t he going to find a way to use them?”
<
p>
What!?!?
<
p>
It is not as if a 12-year-old in possesion of a condom is going to insert into his mind “Oh yeah, I can have sex now”. I got a hold of condoms at 12, my friends and I made water balloons out of them.
<
p>
I wish possession of condoms corrolated with ability to “find a way to use them” – merely possessing condoms has never helped me in any way shape or form put them to a good use. If there were some sort of magic correlation between possession of condoms and getting action, Trojan Condoms would be the hottest stock traded on NYSE and would be more ubiquitous than the iPod.
If you talk with kids and acknowledge, honestly, that sex is something that most humans do and enjoy, but that when it happens it must be done responsibly (and here’s how…) and not until an appropriate time in their life, then you set up an atmosphere of communication, honesty and trust. Otherwise, some kids will take the message (intended or not) that a) sex is dirty, and so they should be ashamed of their bodies, or b) they just have to get the info they want elsewhere.
<
p>
So we have a choice – create an atmosphere of communication and trust where kids know there are adults they can talk to and get reliable information from, or an atmosphere of shame, fear, dishonesty, evasion, and backstreet info that may or may not be reliable.
<
p>
I will guarantee you one thing, if you think every kid taught abstenance-only will refrain from sex until you get around to talking condoms at 16-18, you will have missed the boat on close to the majority of them.
and more concisely, too!
if unplanned pregnancy is you concern, remember this verse:
Pray that you have a quiverful of gay children! đŸ™‚
It is the ONLY part that is the point of contention.
<
p>
As to your question, “Why do we have to teach kids (and teaching sex ed to 10 to 12 year olds or younger is teaching kids) about sex?” – because 13, 14, and 15 year olds ( and yes, 12 year olds) hae sex. Not pretty, but it is a fact. Do you want children to learn about sex and pregnancy before they have sex, or after they have been sexually active?
If you take a look at the recent study, you’ll read that:
<
p>
-there was no difference in knowledge of condom use and effectiveness between the ‘abstinence only’ group and the control group.
<
p>
-Also, there was some greater understanding of STDs in the ‘abstinence only’ group.
<
p>
I think you’re setting up a strawman argument if you’re suggesting the ‘abstinence only’ group was uneducated with respect to birth control.
Ask and you shall receive:
<
p>
Why must we teach youngsters about sex? Would that we didn’t. Unfortunately, the data suggests that about a third of 9th graders have already had sexual intercourse. That means by the time kids are about 14-15, about 33% of them have had sex. So teaching them about condom usage at 12 isn’t so far off the mark. In fact you could argue it’s dead on. Moreover, condom usage has been effective in reducing the number of teenage pregnancies.
<
p>
By the way, AIDS and other STDs aren’t the only problems young people face when they have sex. And having sex at an earlier age increases the risk of delinquent acts one year later compared to those whose first sexual experience occurred at the average age for their school. So at the very least we need to teach them how to properly protect themselves. Part of sexual education is about knowing how to say, “no.” Part of it is about not getting yourself into bad situations. But part of it must also be about what to do once you’re in a bad situation.
There wasn’t always a time when a third of freshmen were having sex, and I think we can all agree thats a good thing. If we really want to reduce the number of teen pregnancies, STDs, the emotional distress and and everything else then simply teaching them how to use birth control isn’t going to do it.
<
p>
We need to change the culture. There is far greater access to birth control than ever before but STDs among teens is “a serious epidemic” according to the CDC. Work with teens today and you will see that having sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend is no longer the norm – you hook up with people and pretend that you can simply have it be sexual, that theres no need to get emotionally attached. Of course they can’t, but thats the culture we live in. If we want to solve the problem we need to stop looking at sex ed as the answer and find a cultural solution to a cultural problem.
I fully believe the current culture of “hooking up” can be directly correllated to the teaching of sex ed to younger and younger students. Sex has been destigmatized and there is no shaming of teenage pregnancy as there once was. It is just ok to do so they learn in school.
examine bible belt states where there is no Sex Ed in schools — abstinence only if anything.
<
p>
i suspect that even there you’ll see there’s been a culture shift.
Top teen pregnancy rates per 1000 teen girls in 2000: DC (128); NV (113); AZ (104); MS (103); NM (103); TX (101); FL (97); CA (96); NC (95); GA (95). Way down the list: RI (67), MA (60), PA (60), ME (52), NH (47), VT (44). Other “Bible Belt” states like AL, SC, TN, etc. are pretty high — in the 80s and low 90s.
<
p>
Personally, I’m not seeing that whatever they’re doing in the Bible Belt is holding down pregnancy rates. But maybe that’s just me.
…DC is not a state, and any comparison of that with other jurisdictions as if it were a state would be fraudulent.
EaBo, others have corrected you on the things we disagree, like the difference between “abstinence” and “abstinence only”. That was my issue with the Battenfeld piece.
<
p>
However, I think we agree that we need to strongly address the cultural currents that trivialize sex and encourage kids to sexually exploit each other and themselves. That should be a big deal to progressives and conservatives alike. Kids should be taught how to parse the pervasive sexual come-ons in pop culture, just as they’re taught to parse ads for shoes or cereal or cigarettes.
<
p>
I just don’t think it’s honest to pretend that condoms don’t exist or don’t work. You have to give kids the whole truth, or they won’t trust you on anything. And indeed, their lives and health are at stake.
<
p>
who are you arguing against?
…teach misinformation about condom use.
<
p>
http://oversight.hou…
<
p>
Nothing like inspiring the trust of our young people by lying to them
What about the correlation between the shame of teenage pregnancy and abortions and dangerous unsanctioned abortions?
<
p>
If “Just Say No” didn’t eliminate teen drug use, why would one suspect “abstinence only” is going to effectively reduce teen sex?
I think more of it is a culture where Rachel on the TV show Friends has over 20 sexual partners during the course of the series and only 5 are in the context of a relationship. The earlier and earlier sex ed is society trying to respond to forces such as these. Do they both play a role? Probably, but I think its TV more than school that has destigmatized it.
I was looking at sex ed as part of the answer to an educational problem given the current culture. We can agree that it’s perhaps a cultural problem, but also that changing a culture takes some time. In the meanwhile, comprehensive sexual education is a must in order to protect young people’s health–and for that matter adult health too, since kids tend to wind up as adults and take their knowledge with them. I don’t think you say that part of changing the culture is to take away some of the precautions that help them function healthy today. There seems to be this tension in this discussion so far between “changing the overall culture,” and “sexual education now,” — I don’t really see why. Maybe I misunderstand you?
and I’m not arguing against comprehensive sex ed in schools. I think we should really be pushing abstinence as the way to go, but also offering factual information about birth control as well. I think we can< expect teens not to be having sex and that it isn’t an unrealistic expectation.
<
p>
My point is that it needs to be socially unacceptable again for 13 and 14 year olds to be having sex. There are bigger issues than just pregnancy and STDs. Will it happen anyway? Sure, it always did even when we didn’t have The OC.
<
p>
I agree that it will take some time to change the culture. The situation we are in today didn’t just happen overnight, and it wont be fixed overnight either. From my little corner of the island I can only get a few radio stations. On one of the stations that plays local music and one that plays more pop American music there has been a campaign the past few weeks against rape. Its very effective, methinks.
<
p>
The people here identified a problem and are trying to change the culture that allows it. I think we should do the same thing by trying to convince kids to put off sex until they are prepared to face all of its consequences.
It already is socially unnacceptable for 13 and 14-year-olds to have sex. Also, I suspect sexual activity amongst 13 and 14-year-olds isn’t a new, overnight phenomena, but I do think young teenage sexuality has become more brazen and less “underground”, if you will.
<
p>
When we talk about a culture that creates an atmosphere where young teenagers are sexually active, promiscuous even, it goes so far beyond the OC and Nelly Furtado; they should be step 4 and 5 in the conversation, not step 1.
<
p>
Let’s not forget that many teenagers turn to sexual activity because they equate sex to love. Many children sexually abused at a young age or emotionally abused and alineted from their parents seek comfrort, attention and yes love from sexual activity with their peers and often times older people – allowing themselves to be abused/used again, thus perpetuating the cycle.
<
p>
I don’t know. I would defer to experts in child/adolescent sexuality. I am sure there is volumes of scholarship on the issue.
<
p>
I will offer my opinion, fwiw.
<
p>
Step one would be to provide as many real life positive “sexualy role models” as possible for children. The first sexual role model a child has are parents. In a heterosexual household, a boy will learn how to treat women by watching the way a father treats the mother, and a girl will learn how to allow a man to treat her by seeing the mom interact with the father, and vice versa. Then the next role models are other couples in the family and friends. (I know there are many types of families, but I used this basic example as a starting point). Allowing children to grow up in healthy, gender positive environments would be my step one.
<
p>
Step two would be eliminating the experiences of sexual abuse/violence aflicting children.
<
p>
Step three would be to eliminate any sense of gender inequity and bias in the class room (and at home).
<
p>
Step four would be getting truly positive, diverse and represntations of age apropriate gender and sex roles in childrens literature/educational material. This would also include critical studies of gender, specifically compulsory heterosexuality as represented in Disney-like kids media (Little Mermaid, Cinderella).
<
p>
Step Five I might get around to sexuality displayed in media seen by older children (eg OC, Friends, etc).
<
p>
Again, I’m no expert; but we do have to agree that this is some deep shit.
…let’s understand something. It has been widely reported that abstinence, whether or not “only,” is interpreted by the kiddies as being abstinence from penile-vaginal sex. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not abstinence from oral sex, abstinence from anal sex, or abstinence from frottage. The first two can still get you infected by an STD, the last not likely.
<
p>
Another point. The Dutch have probably the most “liberal” “age of consent” laws, but according to statistics, they are also the most open (within the family) about discussing sex with their children, and they have one of the highest ages of first sexual intercourse in western Europe–several years older than even the rather conservative UK and the US. Surprising? Not really. Open discussion within the schools and the family demystifies the subject. Forbidden subjects are often the most sought-after.
<
p>
Yet another point. In the US, the age of consent laws vary from state to state, but it is known that underage pregnancies are caused by above-age males having sex with under-age females. Why are they not prosecuted for statutory rape? I’ll tell you why: because nobody gives a tinkers’ damn.
<
p>
Last point, regarding the *. I gave up on Fox25 news a number of years ago. I mentioned the story here a couple of weeks ago. Faux25 news was doing a story in a park in Weston about a flasher who was flashing in the park. Guess what. It just so happened that, while they were recording the story, a flasher showed up. Fancy that. Such a happenstance. After I got off the floor, laughing (the likelihood of that actually happening without having been staged is between, well, zilch and zero), I switched the channel. Fox 25 does have a few good cartoons, though, and their Married With Children was hillarious. News? No.
<
p>
Regardless of your assurances of safety, I resolve to abstain from painting or decordating my home. Just say no.
<
p>
*Frottage – a negative painting method where paint is removed after applying plastic sheets.
…I don’t know if you are merely pulling my chain, but frottage, from a sex standpoint, is the act of rubbing one’s genitalia on the surface of the other person’s body. It may be similar to painting. But it is how my first boyfriend and I in the early 1970s relieved ourselves. But we were self-trained, and, as such, didn’t consider vaseline.
<
p>
I have been told, by people who are knowledgeable in the matter, that the skin barrier (frottage) is actually quite good against infection. Not perfect, but good.
thats something I really wanted to know about you.