Did they correct for racial and socio-economic demographics?

Good question NicoleK.

Obviously the problem with the abstinence only cirruculum is that there is no prayer in school. Prayer has always been a way to ensure that unwanted pregnancies don't happen.

I blame Global Warming. You laugh, but how many people do you think are going to fool around in minus 15 degree weather with the wind in your face, uphill both ways, and nobody even marketing a winter condom?

You guyz are being snots. "Research" like this is weird, as if any government program were OF ITSELF going to prevent teens from getting pregnant. I can imagine plenty of sane parents who simply ask that schools not add to the parade of sexual stupidities that their kids have to cross through in those years. Such an attitude doesn't make one a flat-Earther.

Besides, you cluckers just aren't that smart or kind or clever. Or erotically alluring.

You snotbots.

Good morning.

I love this:

"Because correlation does not imply causation, our analysis cannot demonstrate that emphasizing abstinence causes increased teen pregnancy."

No, teenagers HAVING SEX does.

And, this is a "scientist" talking.

-Jut

Nichol K raises a good point. I'd add that looking at it state by state seems like a very broad and not very helpful way to make any sort of determination (because there are a lot more things at play state to state than just the policy on sex education). Frankly, I'm disappointed to see people who I'm sure think of themselves as critical thinkers let this pass muster.

When you get right down to it, I don't trust any study on these, and so many other, issues. Add irrational attachment to one's own personal issues to things that are inherently nearly impossible to study, and you get nothing but corruption (from either side).

There are a few hundred million years of evolutionary circuitry pushing young adults to have sex. Now. Repeatedly.

To recall the power of that circuitry, you oldsters (i.e., above age 24) should remember your first few consensual tryouts of your sex drive with the opposite sex (for straight people anyway). Yeah...no roller coaster, skydive, or wide-open throttle matches that experience.

So, good luck trying to override nature's demonstrably effective reproductive programming and hardware with a few classes taught by boring, earnest, paunchy middle-school teachers, whose real motivation is getting a pension by age 52 so they can retire early.

When things reached that point with her bf, my 17 yr old daughter went down to the free clinic this summer and put herself on the pill. No questions asked or parental involvement necessary.

Yet, oddly, I must go with her to get the HPV vaccine. They only administer it free until she's 18.

I'm not opposed to either dceision. She's a smart girl and has made responsible choices for herself (she also chose abstinance for a long while). I was just a little surprised that parents had no say whatsoever about the birth control but must approve the vaccine.

Per usual, Crid nails it (at least I think it's what he's saying). I don't want anyone in the schools or the government talking to my kids about sex. I don't want some assistant football coach teaching my daughter how to put a condom on a cucumber. I don't care if it's abstinence-only or watching hardcore porn - the only people my children should be talking with about sex is their mother and their father.

It's mind-boggling that the same people who rant about idiotic government/school policies on sexual harrassment are the same people calling for increased government/school input into children's sexual education. One necessarily follows from the other.

My opinion on abstinance programs is that it's good if we can prolong the inevitable. Every year my daughter chose abstinance was one more year of maturity gained. I don't think it's going to ever "cure" teens from having sex. The best these programs can do is encourage them to wait a little longer. Most will certainly not wait until marriage.

Not to mention the disconnect between asking the same people who apparently can't/don't have time to teach children to read, write and do math to teach them about responsible sexual behavior.

This is all just part of the nanny-state mentality, wherein the government replaces the parent.

Amy: "Well, there's super-clever for you."

Not really. It was just a poorly worded statement on her part. Do you disagree?

"It's asinine to teach abstinence-only."

Why? Because it is ineffective? Because of biological drives? Because we think kids should be having sex?

Really, why?

I remember the "just say no" era when it came to drugs. People ridiculed it, but not because they thought it was ineffective so much as they did not like Nancy Reagan. When it comes to sex, people seem to believe that it is a forgone conclusion that kids will have sex, but, well, they really shouldn't do drugs.

Is a "just say no" approach always bad?

Why is it asinine to teach that, any more than it is asinine to have any strict moral principles? Is it the principle you don't like? You wrote a whole book about badgering people who are rude to you, knowing full well that rudeness is a part of the human condition.

Was that your own little Sisyphean tale? Or did you actually think that you could succeed at making people less rude? Do we actually think that there are some things that kids should not do, even though they are driven to do so? Do we think they are powerless to resist their impulses?

And, if they are powerless, why do we care if they practice safe sex? What makes us think they will want to do that? What is wrong with the drive to reproduce, anyway? We are fine conceding they are going to have sex, but then get our undies in a knot if they actually produce children. So, the message is, "we know you are going to have sex, but don't have children." That is asinine; we know you are not going to obey this rule, so make sure you this one.

(And the defenders of the collectivist nanny-state should be making their appearance soon.)

-Jut

I have always been open and honest with my girls about sex. Both of them, while still in high school, have said to me that when the time comes, they want to go on the pill, and I gave my permission, and even took the older one to the clinic the first time she went. The younger is especially aware of the need for it. In her freshman year (she's now a junior), no less than 3 of her friends had gotten pregnant before the fist semester was over! She saw these girls with babies and decided there was no way she was going to end up like them. And good for her, I thought. She actually learned the lesson from someone elses' mistakes. I'd much rather her be on birth control than taking chances like her friends did. And I'm very gratedul that she and her sister have no problem talking to me about such things. Having a dialogue with your kids is a MUST, whether you like it or not. Because if you AREN'T talking to them, or at least available to just listen, there're going to be a lot more problems in your life than trying to tell them "just say no".

I don't care if it's abstinence-only or watching hardcore porn - the only people my children should be talking with about sex is their mother and their father.

I agree with you in principle, but you're assuming that all or most parents ARE talking to their kids about it. A lot aren't. A lot refuse to. A lot are telling them things that just aren't true. A lot are shaming them (or worse) for asking questions. A lot just don't have time and don't want to deal with it. So, their kids learn about it from other kids -- which works out "great."

If parents did their jobs, schools could back the heck off. But a lot of parents are bad at their jobs, and, sadly, we still need some entity telling kids what they need to know.

As for what sex ed should look like: When I was 9 or 10, I saw an after-school special on Nickelodeon (I think) with Magic Johnson talking about AIDS. The message was clear and simple: use a condom. Every time. No exceptions. If your partner doesn't want to use one, tell that partner to go to hell. No cucumbers necessary.

Sex ed should be part of biology class. No, we shouldn't wait for parents to teach it any more than we should wait for them to teach differential calculus or AP chem. Besides the basic anatomy and mechanics, they should be teaching solid facts about birth control methods, STD prevention methods, and their success/failure rates.

What they don't need to get into is the loosey-goosey stuff about morality, emotions, etc. Just the facts, ma'am.

We had great sex ed when I was a kid. I think maybe one girl got pregnant in High School. But it was mostly white, lots of Jews and Protestants, middle-to-upper class. The question wasn't if you were going to college, the question was where. So there were a lot of societal effects beyond mere knowledge of the mechanics.

"She saw these girls with babies and decided there was no way she was going to end up like them."

Well, that's pretty much what worked for me.

I think we should just forbid abstinence.

"I don't care if it's abstinence-only or watching hardcore porn - the only people my children should be talking with about sex is their mother and their father."

Talk all you want. Teens will still have sex. It is their primary biological function, and nature will have its way. You might as well tell them to not eat when they hunger or drink when they thirst.

I think the problem with abstinence only education is it tells kids to not do something "because I said so".

Teach them about STDs and show pictures of green dicks and rotting mouth sores. Teach them how to protect themselves and their partners. And still encourage them to wait a bit longer.

My son benefited from seeing his cousin get pregnant and drop out of high school. He has seen how limiting and life-changing having a kiddo can be. We had several frank discussions about what he wants for his future and how that might change if he gets a girl pregnant. Also had some awkward discussions about reproductive rights/obligations and what his were and were not.

I want him to be aware of the repercussions and to keep himself safe.

@sofar - I agree with you in principle, but you're assuming that all or most parents ARE talking to their kids about it.

No, I'm not. In fact, I could care less about other parents and their kids. I just don't MY children being taught about sex by the school/government.

If parents did their jobs, schools could back the heck off.

No, they wouldn't. What evidence would make you think that the school/government would ever voluntarily give up power/influence over people? And schools aren't doing the job any better than parents did. I'd argue that based on rising teen pregnancy/sex rates, schools are doing a far worse job than parents ever did.

@Spartee - Talk all you want. Teens will still have sex. It is their primary biological function, and nature will have its way. You might as well tell them to not eat when they hunger or drink when they thirst.

That's silly. Teens won't die if they don't have sex. Your basically admitting that teenagers have zero self-control and shouldn't be expected to take any responsibility for their actions. "It's just nature, they can't help it!"
Bull. But yes, some teens will choose to have sex before they're ready for the responsibility. Doesn't mean I want (or should be forced) to allow some stranger to teach them about it.

"Talk all you want. Teens will still have sex. It is their primary biological function, and nature will have its way. You might as well tell them to not eat when they hunger or drink when they thirst."

We can lay out all the risks and potential consequences, and, as Flynn says, parents must have that dialogue (though far too many don't).

We can teach them how to THINK for themselves - to make rational decisions about this and all other areas. I've made a lot of mistakes as a parent, but one thing I did right was encouraging my kids to make good choices for themselves, not just because I "told them so".

But I was also blessed with bright kids. If you lay out risks and consequences to bright kids, they're more likely to evaluate things properly and make good choices. That's something that is rarely factored into the teen pregnancy equation. Less intelligent kids are going to be more impulsive and driven by hormones/instinct rather than reason.

Gotta be careful during that fist semester....

As for what sex ed should look like: When I was 9 or 10, I saw an after-school special on Nickelodeon (I think) with Magic Johnson talking about AIDS. The message was clear and simple: use a condom. Every time. No exceptions. If your partner doesn't want to use one, tell that partner to go to hell. No cucumbers necessary.

If there's going to be any sex ed in the schools, this would be something I could live with - and it shouldn't take an entire semester, day or two at most. But there should be an opt-out choice for any parent that doesn't want their kid participating.

I say the more comprehensive, the better. My high school was very progressive and we had a very in-depth sex ed class. We had a man dying from AIDS come talk to us. We had an OB/GYN come in and talk about birth and she brought in a human placenta. We saw slide shows of general herpes and warts. After all that, there was no way I was going to whore around!
The class also taught us how to use several kinds if birth control, and we learned about the mental/psychological aspects of having sex. But the frank nature of the class taught me that a)you'd better be careful about who you choose to have sex with and b) always use protection. And isn't that what sex ed is supposed to teach?

I'm a bit disturbed by all the "My kid saw their friend get pregnant and as a result made good decisions" comments. Kids shouldn't HAVE to be learning by negative example. That means there has to be negative examples around to learn FROM! Comments like that are proof we need more education.

I'm not sure why everyone's so hung up about sex in schools. Are you also against learning about excretion (I don't want my kids learning about piss from their teachers!)? The cardiovascular system (I don't want my kids learning about heart attacks in schools!)? Safe traffic laws (I'll teach my kids how not to get run over, thank you very much!)? Dinosaurs (I don't want them fancy-pants gummint paleontologists teaching my kids that Eve didn't have a pet tyrannosaurus in Eden)?

And other people's kids not learning about sex facts IS very much my problem, if they start popping out kids. Because then I as the taxpayer have to pay... either welfare benefits, or prison, either way...

JD Thompson, do you have a source for rising teen pregnancy rates? Can you please site it?

> the only people my children should be talking
> with about sex is their mother and their father.

That's a little extreme, but we're on the same page.

A few of the casually fascist presumptions of our age, exemplified in this snarking blog post and its snotbox comment stack:

• There's ONE PERFECT WAY to teach kids to grow up to be suitably-hip citizen-bots of the correct temperament with respect to their politico-sexual correctness

• Amy (or her snot commenter) knows, through some undescribed blessing, what that PERFECT WAY is, and other people don't know

• It's perfectly righteous for government to instill that PERFECT WAY indoctrination –in schools, at the expense of the parent– because, the stakes are SO HIGH, man.

People suck. Especially the fascist lefty busybodies.

I still think the one-two punch we got in school was the most effective deterrent.

Never mind condoms and abstinence--we got the VD films in 7th grade showing people with syphilitic sores, limbs falling off, madness, and death followed up by the childbirth film in Sophomore year of high school--with the camera front and center.

Two people passed out at the episiotomy, lost another one when the water broke (on the camera lens). We had one incidence of teen pregnancy in my graduating class of 173 (87 females). That's one percent.

I'd call that pretty frickin' effective.

I realize other places will have different ways but around here a notice is sent to the parents before sex ed. We are given the chance to view the materials and presentations and then decide to opt out if desired.

I still think the one-two punch we got in school was the most effective deterrent.

Never mind condoms and abstinence--we got the VD films in 7th grade showing people with syphilitic sores, limbs falling off, madness, and death followed up by the childbirth film in Sophomore year of high school--with the camera front and center.

Two people passed out at the episiotomy, lost another one when the water broke (on the camera lens). We had one incidence of teen pregnancy in my graduating class of 173 (87 females). That's one percent.

I'd call that pretty frickin' effective.

Sorry for the two "corrects" in one sentence. I feel bad. I promise, I'll make it up to you... You fucking storm troopers.

If you scroll down a bit through this blog, you'll get to the post about Angel Adams screaming "Somebody's gotta pay for my 15 kids!". She must have been a teen when she started popping out her litter, and I don't believe that any amount of abstinence ed or sex ed would have altered her destiny in life. NicoleK is right, and any study that doesn't take demographics fully in to account is worthless.

The teaching sex ed isn't what bothers me. I think we should prepare kids for all areas of adult life - home ec, balancing a checkbook, etc. What bothers me, and other parents, is the presumption that they're ready for sex or already having sex.

Now, we have the DARE program in early elementary school, which functions in a similar way. It's simply presumed that kids that age are already smoking crack. My kids learned about drugs from that program, way before they'd even had a thought of using drugs.

This upset me because it seemed to remove my ability to extend their innocence and childhood a little longer. Just because drug use is common in inner cities didn't mean my sheltered suburban kids needed to be informed so early, but public education uses a broad brush.

When sex ed is taught, it should still be with a lot of "when you're old enough's" in the dialogue. Abstinance should be pushed, if not entirely expected. There's nothing wrong with setting the bar high.

Is a "just say no" approach always bad?

Yes. Allways. Every. Single. Time.

Just say no = becasue I said so.

It doents work on toddlers and it sure as hell doesnt work on teenagers

I'd argue that based on rising teen pregnancy/sex rates, schools are doing a far worse job than parents ever did.

And most people are smart enough to notice that those spikes in teen pregnacy are in areas where absitinace only is taught

If there's going to be any sex ed in the schools, this would be something I could live with - and it shouldn't take an entire semester, day or two at most. But there should be an opt-out choice for any parent that doesn't want their kid participating.

Posted by: JDTho

So long as they also had to opt out of ever reciveing any government assitance or welfare claims thru any resulting infants I'd agree

OK, I was being harshly judgmental and environmentally non-sustainable. Rereading in the morning light, it turns out Amy wasn't ACTUALLY arguing for a school board's authority to fill a kid's head with whatever the popular bullshit of the moment might be.

But if you're going to argue the parameters of sex education, you're presuming it's capable of doing SOME good, right?

I have great sympathy for parents who think otherwise, no matter how well they conduct their own erotic lives.

I am a retired teacher in South Carolina. At one time I taught 7th grade sex ed. It did not include birth control but it did not teach abstinence only either. Different school districts had different rules. What I saw were that students who had babies were glorified. They brought their babies to school and were fawned over by all the female teachers. Some of the teachers had children out of wedlock and brought their babies to school and got the same treatment. Students who had babies did not have them because they did not know about birth control. They had them because they wanted to. It enhanced their status and made them think they were more adult.

JDThompson wrote: In fact, I could care less about other parents and their kids. I just don't MY children being taught about sex by the school/government.

Looks like I misunderstood your original post. Thought you were saying public schools should NOT be having sex ed, period, rather than saying you just wanted to have your own kids opt out. My bad.

All my schools allowed opt outs --a note went home to all parents well in advance of the classes, and parents could come and get their kids for that couple hours each day during sex ed time. Only one family opted their kid out, and it was the same family that opted her out of our 'Ancient Egypt' unit too, because the ancient gods were being discussed or whatever (not sure why they didn't just homeschool her, but I digress).

In any case, no family was ever forced to have their kids learn about s-e-x at school.

Teen pregnancies have been on a downward trend for a couple decades now. There have been some regional spikes, as well as a spike in the middle of this decade. But the trend is, overall, a downward one.

And a lot of schools are handling sex ed excellently. Many of them in Texas are having teen parents come in and talk to the kids about their harrowing experiences. When I went through school, our sex ed was pretty scientific- and protection-based. Nuts and bolts stuff, rather than the "loosey-goosey stuff about morality, emotions, etc" (borrowed that excellent description from NikoleK in her comment above). We learned how to protect ourselves (abstinence, condoms, etc) and about the consequences if we failed to do so.

@lujlp So long as they also had to opt out of ever reciveing any government assitance or welfare claims thru any resulting infants I'd agree

Um, yeah, whatever, sure, as long as they were also simultaneously opting out of paying taxes that will go towards supporting other people's infants who do go through public sex ed.

And most people are smart enough to notice that those spikes in teen pregnacy are in areas where absitinace only is taught

I'm not arguing in favor of abstinence-only sex ed. I'm arguing against state-run sex ed for my children.

So long as they also had to opt out of ever reciveing any government assitance or welfare claims thru any resulting infants I'd agree.

So, we punish their grandchildren because they were stupid?

How about instead we put the opting out parents on the hook for forced child support through age 18 for any grandchildren born to their children while under the age of 18? Put them on the same hook we use to impale teenaged fathers.

Of course, this will require a huge government bureaucracy to implement and maintain. The agency maintaining those records will have to operate across state lines (no opting out of sex ed in Minnesota and then moving to Iowa).

It also means the sex ed cirriculum will have to be standardized [and adhered to] across states so we know what the irresponsible parents opted out of. And that means another bureaucracy to develop the cirriculum and audit schools for compliance.

And most people are smart enough to notice that those spikes in teen pregnacy are in areas where absitinace only is taught.

Really? They are? Which areas?

A recent University of Georgia study would seem to bear out your hostility to abstinence-only education.

However, after reading an article about the study and skimming the write up, I'm left with the sneaking feeling that the authors of the study were not exactly impartial observers.

Co-author of the study, Kathrin Stanger-Hall, assistant professor of plant biology and biological sciences in the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences, told the interviewer, "Because correlation does not imply causation, our analysis cannot demonstrate that emphasizing abstinence causes increased teen pregnancy. However, if abstinence education reduced teen pregnancy as proponents claim, the correlation would be in the opposite direction."

Wait.

"...if abstinence education reduced teen pregnancy as proponents claim, the correlation would be in the opposite direction...."

Would be? Not should be. Or would be expected to be?

Nope. Absolutely would be.

So, the only factors that might exert an influence on the results of the study are the ones for which Drs. Kathrin Stanger-Hall and David Hall adjusted? No others?

Certainty in science must be wonderful.

Still, one suspects she's right ... or at least partially right.

Why stop there? What if you have a moral or some other objection to civics? or math? Would you opt them out of biology on the days when they are to learn of other species reproductive processes?

I've seen plenty of parents get waivers for non abstinece only sex ed, I've never heard of any school allowing an opt out FOR abstinence only sex ed

What if a parent wants to opt their kid out of geopotry beause of all the drawings and symbols associated with it many of which as they are universally discoverable and applcable in every day life ave been used by most religions and cults throught history?

Its great you want to educate your kids, most parents dont and scociety as a whole suffers. I'd rather you were kinda sorta mad that your kids learned somthing without your approval then have my money stolen to pay for your kids STD treatments and welfare, sorry but my money is more important to me then your opinions on whether or not you think your teenagers are ready to learn about condoms

I'd argue that based on rising teen pregnancy/sex rates, schools are doing a far worse job than parents ever did.

Teen pregnancy rates are not rising. They've been dropping since the 1990s. This is among many persistent misconceptions about social scourges (e.g., violent crime, which is also down). They're not getting worse, but we hear about them more than we used to.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/05/teen-pregnancy-rate-lowest-in-two-decades/

Would be? Not should be. Or would be expected to be?...So, the only factors that might exert an influence on the results of the study are the ones for which Drs. Kathrin Stanger-Hall and David Hall adjusted? No others?

My guess would be that abstinence-only sex education covaries with the religiosity of the local population; you're more likely to find abstinence-only classes where you have a large population of conservative Christians.

Children get the same message at home and at school: don't have sex until you're married. And they don't get much instruction about how to not get pregnant if/when they do have sex (condom best practices, where to get birth control pills, etc). Since kids have sex anyway, we get more teen pregnancies in places where abstinence-only sex ed is the rule because they're neither learning what to do at home nor in school. These places also have a lot more young marriages, and very high divorce rates.

And other people's kids not learning about sex facts IS very much my problem, if they start popping out kids. Because then I as the taxpayer have to pay... either welfare benefits, or prison, either way...

Posted by: NicoleK at December 6, 2011 8:59 AM

Well said.

Regarding what you asked about teen pregnancy rates, here's a chart:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf

(can't look at it right now - but I'm curious to know whether things are better now than in the 1980s - though I suspect they aren't, quite. I DO know that the rate in the 1980s was lower in the 1950s - that is, more girls, percentagewise, in the 1980s never got pregnant at all!)

And, aside from whether or not kids should be made to sit through comprehensive sex ed courses, I don't understand those parents who push for abstinence-only courses. If your kids have already taken your abstinence messages to heart, they don't need the courses! If you or other parents haven't convinced THEIR kids to abstain at least until they leave home for good, what difference is the course going to make? If you're the teacher, how do you impress a class full of indifferent secular kids who already know perfectly well that virgins (as in non-petting virgins) don't have babies or get (most) STDs? Does anyone know what they typically say, in that respect?

I'd also like to know if such teachers ever address the fact that abstinence is hard, emotional WORK - and work with no guaranteed rewards, at that. That is, being disease-free and childless when you're 20 does not mean anyone will want to marry you by then - or even by age 30.

Also, both sex and abstinence have one thing in common - either can make you think you're in love when you're not. This is why you cannot use the agony of abstinence as an excuse to marry at 18 or even 20.

Finally, I realize this isn't too useful any more in the age of AIDS, herpes, and HPV, but I belong to that last generation of liberal families that had no sex ed in schools - OR religious education either, at home or at school.

I would have considered either one to be a violation of my emotional privacy. In short, I'm VERY glad I was allowed to do all the reading research on both subjects on my own, in private (I love to read).

Thankfully, this was before most people had PCs as well, so there was certainly no cyberbullying!

Ah, the good old days....

> I'm not arguing in favor of abstinence-only sex
> ed. I'm arguing against state-run sex ed for my
> children.

If you're only concerned about your kids, I think your on flimsier ground. Keep reading....

> Its great you want to educate your kids, most
> parents dont and scociety as a whole suffers

"Most" is exaggeration. You're still prepared to shove yourself into the lives of strangers, in this most delicate realm of inter-generational leadership, simply because you think you're right about stuff and other people aren't... Or you don't recognize the work other people put into the environments they build for their kids. Saying 'other people will get my money if we don't do this' presumes that those people have already conceded their liberty. But I bet they don't feel that way about it at all.

So one of you is selfish/isolationist and the other is a busybody. I think you both need to understand that a truly responsible parent might not only prefer that his OWN kids not receive sex ed, but might not want other people's kids to get it from the school board, either.

First, school boards tend to be careerist assholes. No sane men could trust them with a treasure like the eroticism of the young.

Second, a person might not want other parents to have the idea that government COULD provide this service for them. There are an awful lot of people who are asking too much of government anyway. Especially in family functions that used to be performed by MASCULINITY... Bringing home money to eat with, disciplining idiot sons, etc. This should be discouraged.

Others who believe that society would work better if we insisted that parents take deeper and more thoughtful involvement in their children's lives might be wrong, and you might be right. But such a view has more instructional power than the cynical postures of either of you guys, approaching the question from opposite sides as you do.

It took a friggin STUDY to prove this?

At 7:29pm, by "instructional power", I meant "is more impressive to me on a personal level."

Seekers, give me the love! Sure, the comment had some problems... But the best libertarians find no friends on the right or the left.

I want the December trophy, people.

Crid, the program offered at my son's school through the years was pretty good. It was age appropriate, pretty straightforward and not over any of my particular parental lines. I know. I previewed each and every time before hand and then decided to allow my son to participate.

At the youngest (around age 9), it started with basic biology. How boys are physically different than girls and what happens during puberty to each of them. I don't know what the girls got but the boys got a little sample size Speed Stick deodorant.

A couple years older and it was how diseases are spread and how you can and cannot catch them. Emphasis on hygiene.

In high school it got a bit more involved, but it was held during the health class and it never glorified sex. It was very matter of fact about how well different types of birth control work at preventing pregnancy and disease... and what happens when they don't. I always felt they tried really hard to not be offensive. It reiterates how you can catch HIV, AIDS, hepatitis, STDs and how to prevent it. More emphasis on disease than pregnancy.

They do tapdance around a bit, but it is understandable considering the environment.

At the previous post there was a positive connotation of ... markers for possessing the kinds of traits -- self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. -- that let you enter, and stay in, the middle class Why promoting these traits suddenly is so wrong?

> The fairy tale that you will tell teens "Don't
> have sex!" and they won't is ludicrous to anyone
> with the slightest knowledge of human behavior.

Well, jeez, to how high a standard are you trying to hold the people you've chosen to oppose on this issue? For someone who enjoys making fun of religious literalists, you're being very simplistic.

A favorite example: NOBODY truly believes that people don't drink before their 21st birthdays. But golly, it's literally true that they could all go to jail for it! Literally! The presidents' daughters, and ever'body!

Drinking laws are one way that we warn people that drinking can be a lifelong hazard, a behavior requiring the best judgment you'll ever have to pursue correctly. And even though It's illegal™, fissures will not open on the surface of the Earth to suck you into the flaming bowels of Hell if you have a 3.2% beer on the third weekend of the seventh month of your twentieth year... Even though, really, It's illegal™ and we're not kidding. Most of your adult peers won't give a rat's ass. You're a big boy, deal with it.

Understanding that vigorous young people will by their nature get all hokey-pokey, and even being comfortable with their hokiest pokage, doesn't mean you want schools do sex instruction to your kids. It's tough enough to straighten out a typical High Schooler's understanding of American history, and international history, and finance, and environmentalism and all the rest. And literature. And on and on.

It's too easy and too pat to accuse people of believing in fairy tales.

LS, I don't see sex ed and DARE being taught early as implying kids are already doing those things, but they are taiught early so kids get the messahe BEFORE they start doing those things.

Crid made a comment yesterday, something about hipster sex or something, which made me wonder if we are talking about the same thing when we talk about sex ed.

This is what I'm talking about:

* Anatomy of the reproductive system... fallopian tubes, vas deferens, etc
* Description of menstrual cycle, ovulation, hormone levels, etc
* Sperm, how it is made, how long it lives, how well it can swim, etc
* basic pregnancy facts: fertilization, implantation, zygote, embryo, fetus, gestation
* fertility facts, when can you get pregnant, etc. Maybe discussion of common fertility problems and birth defects and their causes
* other puberty stuff to expect (for the younger ones), hair, voice deepening, etc
* common stds, how they are contracted, what their effects are
* For older kids, more details like how rna retroviruses reproduce, mitosis and meiosis, chromosones, dna tests, etc
* a run down of common birth control methods, effectiveness rates, how to use them, potential risks (blood clots, weight gain, etc), how they work

I'm seeing this as part of science class, not civics

I totally agree with NicoleK. Sexual education should be science-based, literally "the facts of life," and belongs in schools. Facts taught should include how birth control works, how STDs transmit and progress, and the immense biological and financial responsibilities of bringing up children. Guest speakers like people living with HIV and carefully vetted (i.e., non-welfare junky) teen parents can enhance the lessons by illustrating the life-changing consequences of sexual choices.

I wouldn't expect parents to be able to teach their kids the pure facts about sex with complete accuracy, just like I wouldn't expect them to teach grammar, algebra or French classes, unless they are home schooling. (And yes, I know that shitty schools and teachers may fail at teaching all of these things, but at least teaching kids facts is their JOB. Parents making up for schools failing at their job is another discussion).

There is the idea from some that their darling child is irrevocably sullied by a teacher merely saying "condom" to them, let alone showing how one works. Why? Condoms and other birth control devices are a fact of life, even in many religious households. The idea that only parents can talk to their precious kids about them is puritanical. For god's sakes, a condom is a bit of latex that goes on an erect penis and blocks bodily fluids... what is so outrageous about a teacher explaining that?

If parents have strong moral ideas about birth control, sex without commitment, etc., they can teach them at home. Hell, you'd think even the most conservative parents would want their kids to "know the enemy"!

Indeed, sexual morality can and should be taught in the home as early as possible and NOT in schools. Parental discussions would ideally also include the basic facts of life, but more strongly emphasize the values with which they hope their kids will deal with the facts. I agree that sexual values are sacredly private, and public schools should not attempt to teach them. Since abstinence-only education has a strong moral bias, it should not be taught in public schools.

If kids get a complete reproductive education from both home and school, they can make choices based on knowledge AND morality. And if their lessons from home are somehow lacking, they will at least have the chance of making sexual choices based on reality if they get the facts in school.

Looking through the comments, it seems that most of us still have a somewhat 'old' view about what sex-ed classes have in their curriculum. In NYC, the projected curriculae will include discussions of oral sex (how-to if you have braces), bestiality, phone sex, and mapping a route to the nearest family planning clinic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/public-school-sex-ed-class-could-teach-on-oral-sex-and-bestiality_n_1028670.html

And yes, any parent SHOULD be able to opt their kids out of something like this but it's NYC so it's hard telling if they can or not.

> Facts taught should include how birth control
> works, how STDs transmit and progress, and the
> immense biological and financial
> responsibilities of bringing up children.

Take the point: Discussions of "responsibility" are never crisply factual. That's why this is a topic.

Perhaps "responsibilities" was the wrong word. But why not teach crisp biological facts, like babies take nine months to gestate, change mom's body for good, are utterly helpless for years, etc. And financial facts--the average costs of feeding and clothing a child yearly, not to mention housing, day care, college tuition. It's all part of reproduction. No, hearing these things in a class will not take the place of parental guidance. But it is still valuable information for kids starting to make sexual choices, information which they may or may not get from even competent parents.

We don't expect parents to directly teach their kids a K-12 curriculum and then train them for a career. We expect them to raise them. Kids are allowed to get a great deal of knowledge from school and myriad other sources besides their parents. Why should sex education be any different?

Anyway, I had already used the word "facts" too much in my comment.

> why not teach crisp biological facts, like…

Because I trust you neither to recognize nor observe the boundary. You are some crazy-smug people.

Get the picture?

You're still prepared to shove yourself into the lives of strangers, in this most delicate realm of inter-generational leadership, simply because you think you're right about stuff and other people aren't

Fuck yes I am, out side of a few subject I am the smartest person I know, believe me I know how concieted that sounds - but its one of the reasons I hang out on this board, many of you are as smart as me and provide intelectual stimulation.

But back to my main point, so long as these parents are entitled to my money to fund their kids education, and their kids are entitiled to my money to feed thir resultant babies then I sure as hell am entitiled to isnst theat the learn what it takes to not make more babies in the first place.

Now as soon as we live in a scociety where I can direct which public services my taxes go to or at the very least in one where welfare isnt a thinly veiled prize for being an incompitant moron then I'll stop insisting until then, consider it the cost of dooing business

> I sure as hell am entitiled to isnst theat
> the learn what it takes

Yeah?

Crid do you see room for any discussion of reproduction and the corresponding anatomy in biology classes?

Quite a bit. But in these authoritarian times, I feel ever-burgeoning sympathy for those people, however naive they may be, who just want government to stop fucking with us. (And we should expect a little more energy +--in these most personal matters.)

Consider Amy's item today; "Some Secret Information Should Remain Secret". Then consider that of the millions of communiques exposed by Wikileaks, only a tiny fraction could possibly have deserved to be kept secret from the people who paid for them. Exposing this abuse of secrecy, EVEN AT THE (theoretical) COST OF LIVES, was an indisputably positive service by Manning and Assange.

Yet to appear balanced and thoughtful, Amy wants to "But on the other hand...."

Well, there is no other hand. Lulplgpkj has made it quite clear: This is about wanting power over other people's lives, not about biology schoolin'.

Sorry for the +---.

Windows 7 screen zoom thing.

Crid seriously, what the fuck is your problem? You used to acttualy debate the merits of an argment.

These days you just come across as a teenage girl haveing a particularly bad period reduced to making snide comments and misspelling names

I got to say you were one of the last people I thought I would have to tell to grow the fuck up

And its not about wanting controll over others lives, its wanting controll over mine.

As I have to give up my money to support their fuck ups I want something in return

> snide comments and misspelling

Only one l in control.

> I have to give up my money

Do you pay more in taxes than you receive in bennies?

Yes, the ONLY benefits I get is less than $4,000 a year from the VA for losing a lung and the full use of my right leg defending your ungrateful ass. I pay far more in taxes

Jus' checkin...

It's an interesting question, I'm not sure how much I receive in benefits. I went to public school till I was 15, I use roads, I often use public transportation, I use water and electricity (not sure how much of that is private and how much is govt). I enjoy parks and forests. I had a student loan, but I paid it back, though at a very reduced interest rate.

I get mortgage deduction.

Here in Switzerland I also get the kid money which is nice.

I think we still pay more in taxes than we get, though.

> I'm not sure how much I receive in
> benefits. I went to public school

I hate this argument... It's basically "get in the car, latch your seat belt and shut up". There's no limit to how much imaginary stuff you can describe as working in the life of a taxpayer.

Hate it. Hate hate hate, especially from countries who live socialist lives under the American military umbrella.... If you catch my drift.