Sex education & the GOP platform

[SFG75]

What should kids be taught? In America, a lot of folks are for "comprehensive" education which includes all methods of brith control, how things work, and what can result if you are not careful. Other folks think that teaching this stuff encourages kids to " do it" and therefore, we should only teach abstinence. This is an interesting topic as Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant and the GOP platform is solidly pro-abstinece only. An interesting question was posed about sex education and whether or not it would've helped Palin's daughter.:whistling:

Max Blumenthal: Juno From Juneau: A Video Report From The RNC Floor On Palin's Problem

So, what should be taught? Comprehensive or abstinence and which one would've been better for Palin's daughter?

 

[abecedarian]

Does Sex Ed have to be Comprehensive OR Abstinence? Why can't both be taught together? Give kids the facts and teach them about resistance to peer pressure. Teach them that their personal value doesn't lie in what others might think of them if they do or don't become sexually active.

 

[Sybarite]

Why teach abstinence any more than promiscuity?

Are any schools actually telling children to 'go out and have sex'? You know, I rather suspect that they're not. So why teach children 'do not go out and have sex'?

Either would be foisting an opinion on students – teaching a subjective 'moral' judgment as a fact when neither statement would be a fact.

Present youngsters with the facts; give them the information. Their parents can give do the opinions bit at home.

Besides, as SGF has already mentioned, there is plenty of evidence that teaching a 'thou shalt not' approach actually backfires. To add to the anecdotal evidence of that, it's exactly what happened with my own sister. Who then got pregnant because she'd been removed from a situation where she might have learned about contraception.

 

[Champagne]

Well, since the rate of teen pregnancy (to say nothing of teen abortion) in the USA is several times higher than the rate in the Netherlands, maybe they should have a look at how things are done there. Somehow I doubt that the GOP would approve, though; I have a feeling that this will be yet another case where ideology is more important than outcome.

 

[eyez0nme]

You see the problem about sex education is that they just talk about abstinence without explaining why.

I want comprehensive sex education reform in all high schools where they teach you the consequences of having consensual or forcible sex such as rape. What happens when you are impregnated by a rapist. How much money is needed to have an abortion. How much money the husband needs to pay for child support. How much money the government provides for you. How much money you need to make in order to survive and raise your child without winding up eating shit from trash barrels and begging for dimes and quarters. How many divorces are there for child out of wedlock. How many murders there are for a married and single couples--what are the statistics of you getting murdered by your own husband.

I want the school to teach fact based research and studies what having a child does for the mentality of experienced or inexperienced parents--prepared or unprepared parents. All the reprecussions of having sex, having babies, having STDs--and that includes rape and murder, and people who kills their hubby for life insurance just because they don't want to pay child support.

 

[Sybarite]

Well, since the rate of teen pregnancy (to say nothing of teen abortion) in the USA is several times higher than the rate in the Netherlands, maybe they should have a look at how things are done there. Somehow I doubt that the GOP would approve, though; I have a feeling that this will be yet another case where ideology is more important than outcome.

Excellent post.

The UK and the US have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the West – the Netherlands has the lowest. One has to wonder why.

To develop the theme slightly, according to UN figures for the past five years, the UK has higher rates of rape than any other western countries, all of which (including the US, due to the Constitution) have less restrictive laws against porn and the sex industry.

Perhaps telling people that They Shall Not Have Sex is as likely to fail – and indeed, produce the opposite result to that which is required – as telling legislating about what consenting grown ups can and cannot see and do.

 

[Libra]

Not teaching sex education will not make sex go away,or kids having it.We can preach all we want but I would rather have my child be educated and protected for when the time comes.
Kids are not always going to talk to a parent,so if it is available at the schools I am all for it.
Doesn't mean they will listen, but more info is better then no info.

 

[eyez0nme]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story

Two days later, Unruh dismissed the comments as "old."

"I support her in every way," she said.

Other conservatives who have backed Palin, including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, declined to weigh in.

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor stands by her 2006 statement, supporting sex education that covers both abstinence and contraception.

Seems like you all agree with Sarah Palin's stance.

 

[Champagne]

She also said she didn't support explicit sex education, whatever that means and however it differs from teaching or not teaching about contraception. However, the GOP platform is abstinence-only. That isn't how they go about sex education in The Netherlands, where rates of teen pregnancy and teen abortion are far lower than in the USA. Hence my comment about the Republicans apparently preferring to act on the basis of ideology rather than outcome.

 

[eyez0nme]

Good. It's a waste of f***ing money.

Think about it. She hates wasteful spending. Where else would she cut programs if not sex education--something you can learn all by yourself by watching porn. Kids learn about sex not through their parents or teachers but by themselves at the age young as ten. It's a waste of money trying to teach kids abstinence. You learn nothing. You learn more about sex watching porn (about the clitoris and g-spot) than you will ever in a classroom. That's a fact. It's a waste of money--unless, again, you teach them all about rape, murder, homocide, and suicide as well as the reprecussions that follow sex and money.

 

[eyez0nme]

Again, if sex education taught sex in all areas instead of just the anatomy and "thrusting motions" such as prostitution, hookers, strippers, sex in the media, sex through money, sex for sale, rape and power, serial killers and sex, I'm all for it.

Instead it's just the inane physical anatomy (which you will learn in biology and anatomy, anyway) and how to put on condoms and spermocides.

Sex education encourages sex. I've taken classes as young as twelve-years-old, and I know. Sex education promotes sex by suggesting wearing a condom, you can get a get-out-of-jail-free card.

 

[Champagne]

I don't know if there are any statistics showing that sex education encourages sex, but both within the USA and internationally, sex education seems to be strongly correlated with decreases in teen pregnancy and teen abortion. But sooner or later most people are going to have sex, and they're more likely to end up with an STD if they don't understand how STDs are transmitted and how they can be prevented in sexually active persons.

 

[eyez0nme]

You see, I'm right. It's a get out of free jail card for wearing condoms. This why sex education is a waste of money. Kids will know how to prevent pregnancy by abortions or spermicide; they don't need to be indoctrinated by the federal government. They are not stupid--they will know how.

If they can grow weed, sell crack and ecstasy, conjure up fake IDs to drink under their age limit, cook up crystal meth in their own lab, they will know how. Kids are not ****ing stupid; I don't understand why parents keep thinking they are.

They will learn about STDs on their own, encouraging them to avoid them on their own. By having sex education forced down our throats, it makes them feel safe, care-free, lax, reinforcing the notion that STDs can be cured with a couple of pills.

 

[Champagne]

Apparently they don't know how. Bible-belt states where abstinence-only sex education is more common are also states with higher rates of teen pregnancy and, if the CDC is to be believed, higher rates of STDs.

 

[eyez0nme]

Bible-belt states? How about you stop generalizing an entire group of Christians, eh?

Higher rates of teen pregnancy occure at places where it is usually low-income. Why? Because the majority of them (the Hispanic population for one example) are given free healthcare, free education, free college tuition, free welfare, free everything, so they don't have to worry as much as someone who trying to make a living and are afraid of producing vast amounts of babies.

Sex has everything to do with money. And money is every part of sex, if not all.

 

[Champagne]

The studies in question were correlating sex education methods with teen pregnancy, they weren't correlating income levels. Scientists who do these studies are experienced enough to know what they're doing; excluding other factors is one of the standard components of a comparative study of this sort.

And as far as generalisations are concerned - pot, kettle, black.

 

[eyez0nme]

Studies show how many kids you have correlates directly with how much money you have.

 

[Sybarite]

Good. It's a waste of f***ing money.

Think about it. She hates wasteful spending. Where else would she cut programs if not sex education--something you can learn all by yourself by watching porn. Kids learn about sex not through their parents or teachers but by themselves at the age young as ten. It's a waste of money trying to teach kids abstinence. You learn nothing. You learn more about sex watching porn (about the clitoris and g-spot) than you will ever in a classroom. That's a fact. It's a waste of money--unless, again, you teach them all about rape, murder, homocide, and suicide as well as the reprecussions that follow sex and money.

Nice negative post. Not a single, solitary shred of evidence in it, but it leaves a lovely, negative glow.

I tell you what – how about teaching children that rape and murder and abuse follow marriage and the forming of many relationships, eh? I do assume that you've heard of domestic abuse? Or that child abuse is most likely within families, eh? Or how about that murder happens for reasons totally unconnected with sex – had that even occurred to you? It would all tally with your negative views.

Again, if sex education taught sex in all areas instead of just the anatomy and "thrusting motions" such as prostitution, hookers, strippers, sex in the media, sex through money, sex for sale, rape and power, serial killers and sex, I'm all for it...

Now this is going to be fun – because I'd love to see the evidence that you have for the assertion that sex education teaches " just the anatomy and "thrusting motions" such as prostitution, hookers, strippers, sex in the media, sex through money, sex for sale, rape and power, serial killers and sex". I'll wait patiently for you to post it.

... Instead it's just the inane physical anatomy...

Really? Now there was I thinking that you said that it was about "the anatomy and "thrusting motions" such as prostitution, hookers, strippers, sex in the media, sex through money, sex for sale, rape and power, serial killers and sex"? ~~checks back a post or two~~ Yup, I was right. That is what you posted. Care to make up your mind – consistency is such a help when debating.

... Sex education encourages sex. I've taken classes as young as twelve-years-old, and I know. Sex education promotes sex by suggesting wearing a condom, you can get a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Bullcrap. To follow your 'logic', telling children about Hitler and the Holocaust 'promotes' genocide and murder. Unless, of course, you're saying that you know because, in the classes you've taken, that's what you've taught.

What's frightening is that someone who is, apparently, a teacher, can't even maintain a basic standard of coherent debate or provide evidence instead of crass assertions to support their personal and highly subjective view.

Bible-belt states? How about you stop generalizing an entire group of Christians, eh?

Higher rates of teen pregnancy occure at places where it is usually low-income. Why? Because the majority of them (the Hispanic population for one example) are given free healthcare, free education, free college tuition, free welfare, free everything, so they don't have to worry as much as someone who trying to make a living and are afraid of producing vast amounts of babies.

Sex has everything to do with money. And money is every part of sex, if not all.

Heaven help any pupils you're allowed near. I've rarely read such simplistic rubbish. Mind you, that was a nice bit of casual racism – 'oh look, them nasty immigrunts breed like bunny rabbits 'cos they get it all free on the state'. Do you teach your students that, too?

Studies show how many kids you have correlates directly with how much money you have.

Hey, for a little bit of fun, how about providing some evidence for all of your assertions. And while you're at it, you can provide an explanation – because I'm sure you've got one – just why it is, as has been mentioned more than once (and has been conveniently ignored by you because it doesn't fit your beliefs) why the Netherlands has the lowest rate of teenage pregnancy in the western world.

 

[Champagne]

Studies show how many kids you have correlates directly with how much money you have.

Really? There are basically no childless couple living in grinding poverty or rich families with large numbers of children? Whatever...

One of the most important factors in setting up a statistical study like this one is to compare like with like in all but one factor. So if you're testing the effect of sex education on teen preganacy, you compare groups that are similar in all respects other than the type of sex education they received. In that way you can rule out that poverty, race, or other factors are involved. If you want to test whether household income is a the deciding factor, you set up your study so that household income is the only thing that significantly differs between the study group and the control group. If the investigators hadn't taken those basic precautions to ensure meaningful results, their work wouldn't have been publishable.

So we can take it that family income was accounted for in the selection of the study groups and the control groups, and it still showed a difference based on type of sex education. And where does most of the opposition to sex education come from? Usually from groups with a religious bias.