Sex education helps teens delay sex

would u look at that? sex ed actually leading to abstinence...maybe not abstinence til marriage, but better kids be older, more mature, more prepared...right?

we have all been kids before!!!

free protection is the way to go.

it's nature, we are animals!!

Damnit!!!! Do we have a hole in our common sense storage tank or what? Why do we even debate about stuff like this? There needs to be sex-ed. Period. Don't like it? Put your kid in private school. Case freakin closed. You know, all these assholes who are murderously "pro-life" are also against sex education. How STUPID is that? I keep saying, education is the best and ONLY way to prevent unwanted pregancies and ABORTIONS. DUH DUH DUH! Sex is not a bad thing, it's a damned important part of life. More important than algebra II, that's for SURE.

Angelina you are so funny and right. Take a trip through the Bible Belt if you want to see ignorance in full flower. They get their kids to take chastity pledges, and try to keep them as ignorant as possible, with the natural results. They aren't so pro life when little Peggy Sue gets in trouble, but of course her case is different. She just made a mistake she isn't nasty and shouldn't be made to pay for it like slutty girls. Besides all the people in church would know.......God for sure knows, and understands. Give them the correct information and the tools, pretend you don't know if you must.

Totally agree with all of you except for the fact that most teens could care less about paying attention to a sex ed class. Fact is, with or without sex ed teens will do whatever the hell they want. All you can do is teach sex ed in hopes that maybe you'll get in through their abnormally thick skulls to atleast use something as simple as a condom when they're having their G-Rated sexcapades. You can't scare them, they think they're invulnerable. And this is coming from a 17 year old guy who watches this kind of behaviour constantly and wonders just how it is that the human race has been able to survive this long. yes,

Bottom line is, Sex Ed is a good thing to have in schools, that should be common sense.
No, just because Sex Ed is there doesn't mean anything.

Dylan, I know that you are right. Maybe it will sink in to some. There are a few that want to know and their parents are too embarressed to talk about it. So even if it just helps a few it is valuable. If they started it at about twelve those little perverts would watch for sure. %D

True, like I said having it in schools is common sense. Even if most teens don't care, you may be able to prevent a teen pregnency anyway and that counts for something.

Angelina,
I think the point you raised about 'concerned parents sending kids to private school' is provocative. But why couldn't a community who disagreed with the way sex ed was being taught work to change the public school at the local level? Why insist that those who disagree with you retreat to private schools? Don't they have as much a right to determine the type of education their children recieve, especially in a public school funded by their tax dollars?

Sure, but you have to consider how many people have a problem with sex ed. They would certainly fit the term "minority", which in a democracy, means something. I was in my high school sex-ed class about 11 (yikes!) years ago, and there are still several factoids that have stuck in my mind through the years. I found sex ed to be very effective, especially in encouraging abstinence in my own life. I'm not saying that the people who don't agree with sex ed don't count, or that they should be ousted, but they should simply opt out if they don't like the curriculum. If that's not good enough for them, that is the point at which they should find a school that appeals to their beliefs. Sex is a matter of fact thing, and it's also incredibly important in many, many ways, including both physical and emotional health. Understanding the importance of sex, and being aware of possible consequences can be instrumental tools for a young adult when it comes time to make a decision.

Angelina,
I'm still unclear about where I stand on this issue of sex-ed in public school bc I'm not convinced the public school system should be in the business of teaching sexual ethics. If the school system does teach sex ed (with its implied ethic that sex btw two teenagers is permissable if protection is used) why couldnt parents shape the curriculum so that it represents the local communities standards...and what if their standards were abstinence only education? Instead of "finding a school that appeals to their beliefs," why couldnt they change the public school curriculum?

I understand your position, because the schools SHOULDN'T be teaching sexual ethics. I do not feel that I was taught "sexual ethics" when I was in school, but rather, given facts about sex and, most especially, the potential consequences. To suggest that each and every school should get together to personally create a sex ed program is, forgive me for saying so, both foolish and unrealistic. Next you'll have parents getting together to decide how to teach history. How do you think that would go in the deep south? Interesting prospect... Do you really want to have schools in the USA, where children are taught, in public schools, that if they have sex before marriage, they will burn in an eternal hellfire and bring down the wrath of the Holy Trinity? PUBLIC schools need to have basic, factual information; sans ethical tampering, which would be SURE to occur in your model. I also think you overestimate the amount of interest the average parent has in their school's sex ed curriculum. I doubt they would take much time out of their already busy schedules to discuss SEX with a bunch of other people who are likely to be uncomfortable with the subject themselves. Bottom line, sex ed can be, and often is, very useful and beneficial to the average teen. I can't possibly imagine how a sex ed class would ever encourage a teen to become sexually active, and if it could, I'm sure TV would get that job done MUCH sooner...

Also, since you can't change any of it on a local level it's all rather irrelevant. You have to take what you can get.

Angelina,
I'll forgive some of your bluster and assume you really think there are people who want the threat of "eternal hellfire" taught in public schools. Just for the record, though, I'm not one of those people (and I'm unconvinced you've aimed your rhetoric at any real target). You can't create a strawman, burn it and think you've proven a point. But, more to the argument....

On principle alone, I'm not sure how you can go about sex education without implying a set of ethics that might run counter to what parents believe. While you might be able to teach the biology of sex without an implied ethic, when you teach children how to use condoms and find abortion clinics, there is an implied morality. Agreed? Now you might think the ethic implied is the best ethic or the right ethic or what have you, but --to be frank--isnt that decision best left to the community of parents and not some 'sexually liberated', opinionated outsider?

Now, while YOU might be comfortable forfeiting parental obligations to the state, there are plenty of people who aren't. Parents too busy to care about what their children are being taught about SEX by strangers, are parents with suspect priorities.

Additionally, local communities do have some say in what is taught at their schools--history included. This is why African American, Latinos, Asian-Americans have all succesfully lobbied to have their perspective included in the curriculum---this is the fruit of an open democracy. But then again, maybe they shouldve taken your advice and started a private school and ghettoize their perspective even further.

Lobbying as part of the fruit of open Democracy? Lobbying is something mentioned in the Federalist Essays as being part of the downfall of Democracy. That's coming from a few of the people who built this Country. Just thought I'd mention that.....

dylan,
lobbying is undemocratic? petitioning, undemocratic? I'd like to see the argument for that.

unless you've already provided your argument: "it was in the federalist essays."

in which case, thats not much of an argument.

I'm not sure why you are being so abrasive, but that's okay. I'm suprised that you think there AREN'T parents who would see religious principles incorporated into their school's curriculum. Are you not paying attention to all of the debate over politics and religion lately? Or, our military and religion? Religion is poking it's head into everything these days, and schools sure look like they're next. Don't try to demonize my opinion and act as though I'm creating a fictional demographic. Life is real, not hypothetical, not theological, but real. Sex is a fact of life, as is pregnancy, and sexually transmitted disease. Many parents will assume that their kids are good, and that they know, when they really don't. That's what's REAL. I don't have any kids, because I was a kid myself not that long ago. I know that not a single adult family member EVER told me about AIDs, condoms, or explained pregnancy. It's a school's responsibility to teach facts, and parents' responsibility to instill their respective principles, morals, and beliefs in their children. Just about EVERY child WILL at some point, become a sexually active adult. Compare that with the number of parents who have a problem with a BASIC sex ed class...key word.....B A S I C. There you have your answer. As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty simple. By the way, there's a difference between community members contributing views and information, and a community "group" defining a local perspective that IS the curriculum. I'm dissapointed to see you turn the issue of sex ed into a racial issue. "Ghettoize"? Riiiiiiight. I don't know who you are, or what you have lived through, but you don't know anything about me either, or where I come from in my perspective, so don't twist my words into something that is completely different from what I am trying to express. Thanks.

Angelina,
I'm sorry you think my critique of your position is abrasive. You made a couple of points and I thought I pointed out the respective weakness of the point in a tone comparable to yours (" to think a community of parents can get together to monitor the sex ed being taught at their schools is unrealistic and FOOLISH.") I even cleaned up your quote so that it represents something I actually said versus something you thought I said ( I never suggested that communities create [vs montior] sex ed curriculum out of whole cloth).

And yes, I do see how religious values (like love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, friendship, loyalty, etc) have made their way into all facets of our social life. What you claimed, though, was that people wanted explicit theological views (about the trinity and eternal damnation) taught in public schools. So please, provide evidence of a significant demographic who wants theology taught in public school.

You say life is real and not theological. I'm not sure what this means, but why couldnt it be reasonable to assume LIFE IS REAL because of some theological convictions you have? Namely, life is what it is because of my relationship the creator of life. Its clear you prejudiced against religious belief, but all that means is...your prejudiced against religious belief...so what?

Lastly, your point about racializing the conversation is wrongheaded and misguided. You said that it was unreasonable for a community of parents to effect the local curriculum. I gave an example of how parents affected the local curriculum to address their concerns about an inclusive American history. How is this different from parents affecting sex ed curriculum? You present a false dichotomy between "contributing information" and "defining a curriculum."

Lastly, lastly...you're right I dont know about you and you experience and this or that, but I dont think its fair to say I twisted your words...the irony of course, is that by saying that you twisted my words.

You suggested people who cant convince others that their perspective is worth including in the public school curriculum should start their own private schools. I brought up a historical example of how people who had a hard time convincing others of their views ultimately triumphed and the curriculum was all the better because of it. That you cant see the logical results of your position says more about you than it does about me.

"In the essay Federalist 10, James Madison defines a faction as a number of citizens that are either a majority or a minority of the whole. They must be grouped together by a common surge of emotion, and interest, different beliefs than others citizens, and usually go against the interests of others in the community. Basically, he writes about a very large or very small group of people that are united together to oppose another group, government or law."

Federalist Essay No. 10 James Madison

Now as far I can tell lobbying has to do with factions
Honestly, do you want me to pull out the actual quote, because it's a rather hard read. But I'll do it if you really think my argument isn't grounded Mr. Brown.

Dylan,
I dont think you need the actual quote. You need to defend the idea of the quote. Although I'm not sure the quote is as forceful as your claim that the aims of organized groups directed towards the same goal is undemocratic.

It actually is according to James Madison. If you think about it, the founding fathers actually wanted a more Utopian society and in the Federalist Essays James Madison talk a lot about factions and yes he does think they're undemocratic. Basically, if a minority unites together to change a law or such then they're going agaisnt the majoirty and that's what the founding fathers were all about. They wanted a complete utopian society and factions get in the way of that. But they also knew factions would never go away due to the fact that people have opinions. my real point is that I just wanted to bitch about our founding fathers being a bit more controlling than some would like to think. ;)

LOL, you crack me up. WHATEVER. We're talking about the fact that sex education helps in the prevention of teen sex. You are trying to turn it into an opportunity to argue and display your "intelligence". My position is SIMPLE. When it comes to sex ed in public schools, it should be AVAILABLE, it should be SIMPLE, it should be FACTUAL. It should be OPTIONAL. It should require PARENTAL PERMISSION. Parents should be welcome to join IN the ACTUAL class, so they can approach it from their personal position...On ONE on ONE basis. Doesnt that seem a lot more effective and easier than parents molding the curriculum? I'm not going to buy into your whole argumentative stance, particularly because you have gone off on a tangent, and are not really addressing my points, but rather, the "holes" that you think you are finding in my position. I'm not here to argue with you. In addition, there' s a big difference with finding a way to argue with people, and actually having a debate. You, clearly, do not understand that. I don't have to prove to you that there are people out there who would bring their religious views to an issue that should be clear cut and informative. That should be obvious to someone who thinks so much of their powers of observation, which I GATHER, you do. DISCLAIMER: I COULD BE WRONG. Here's a quote from you: "And yes, I do see how religious values (like love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, friendship, loyalty, etc) have made their way into all facets of our social life." ha ha ha ha ha LAUGHABLE. First of all, I said religion and POLITICS/MILITARY. Religion has NO BUSINESS IN POLITICS OR MILITARY. Read up on it. When Religion enters politics, we have some interesting results...please see archives on BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Now, what does PUBLIC school mean to you? To me, it means it's PUBLICLY paid for, by local and federal government, available to ALL children, regardless of race, color, religion, etc. That means there should not be ANY steering of children based on religious beliefs, which WOULD occur. That's NOT the schools place, as you would agree. To say that Religous views wouldn't enter the equation, means you are unrealistic, idealistic, and otherwise NOT paying attention to current events. Bottom line, there ARE religious zealots in this country... A LOT of them. 25% of Americans believe that Jesus is returning THIS YEAR, as in 2007. That's an AP Poll buddy. Look into it. I am not prejudiced against religious beliefs, you buffoon, I am a PATRIOT, and I don't believe that religious beliefs of any kind should be mixed into government or government/public programs, LIKE SCHOOLS. I don't know what religion you follow, and frankly, I don't care. That's your business, as it should be. But one thing I DO know, (and I'm bringing this up because I find your quote to be fully IGNORANT of past and present events), is that primarily "Christian" values are used today to dictate what is right or wrong on a LEGISLATIVE level. The values you mentioned, "love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, friendship, loyalty", those are beautiful, and certainly Christian principles. Those principles are NOT what comes through when religion mixes with government. You seem like you are at least of common intelligence, so you should know that. True Christians are disgusted with what our government has/is/will do behind the veil of religion. Look, just do me a favor... Look into this more before you start telling people that they are prejudiced. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and it's entirely inappropriate for you to call me prejudiced simply because I don't want other people's religious views effecting the curriculum in schools. WTF? Isn't that what AMERICA is??? Why is this such a difficult issue for you to grasp? Are you NOT an American Citizen? Are you unaware of where we come from? If you are familiar with the history of this nation, then is should be a NO BRAINER. Offer BASIC, FACTUAL sex ed on an opt out basis. Give parents a heads up on what will be covered. Better yet, welcome parents to take part in the class so they can discuss the information presented, should they allow their child to be present. You know what I just realized? All of the time I am spending trying to explain my position is wasted on you. You're not going to understand my real points. You're just going to mince words and find ways to be a smart ass. My point is simple, and I think I have made it clear. God Bless.

Angelina,
Wow. Nice response. Although I'm not sure I was the one who got off an a tangent. I raised a couple of questions:
1) Does sex education always imply a sexual ethic? Or, to put it another way, Can you teach sex ed without teaching a sexual ethic? I don't think so, but I'm open to an argument. You simply never addressed it.

If you grant you cannot teach sex ed without a sexual ethic, but think the sexual ethics being communicated is the best ethic available, then you have to argue for that position. Obviously, there is a significant portion of the tax paying public that disagrees with the sexual ethics being taught to their kids during public school.

This raised the addtional question of what role parents CAN? SHOULD? play in the development of sex ed curriculum. You seemed to argue that parents with a different sex ethic than was being currently taught were better off moving to private schools as opposed to lobbying for their views at the local level. I thought your view was anti-democratic and gave an example from our history of how minority views were have affected curriculum change.

A lot of this can be boiled down to another Q: what role should religion play in public life?

Now, you might wish for religion to be an entirely private matter, but that simply is undemocratic and unconstitutional.

Now, with much of the substance of my argument out of the way, I'd like to turn my attention to your calling me a "buffoon" and implying that I'm "ignorant".

Now, when you say religion has NO place in politics or the military, I wonder what you have in mind? Your blanket statement indicates an unrefined view of how religion has historically informed our cultural institutions (including politics and the military)--for starters, ask the Chaplains of both the Legislative Branches and Armed Forces to discuss the role religion plays in the culture of both institutions.

You seem to have a very elementary understanding of what it means for Religion and Government to mix. But maybe that way of looking at the world works for you. Now, your point may be simple, but it far from clear.

Lastly, Angelina, drink warm milk. I

One more thing...A little peek into my experience, not that it matters, but here it is anyway. I was once CATHOLIC. I was kind of a church rat, considering all of the events that I was part of at the church. Well, we had a youth group leader/coordinator at the church. She had been working there for YEARS. Her daughters were also part of the youth group, and also went to school with me. Coincidence meant that this family lived just down the street, so we were friends outside of the church as well. The oldest daughter was a cute, skinny, blond girl with disproportionally large...uhm...mammaries. Well, I got to know this girl really well, and so did A LOT OF GUYS AT SCHOOL, in THAT way. When she lost her virginity, she did it in the high school parking lot, and then proceeded to tell everyone about it. While she had been raised in a very religious home, a home where priests were invited to gatherings (no smart ass priest jokes please), she had NO sexual guidance. NONE. She became pregnant in no time, got married, (the groom wore sunglasses to the ceremony), and then divorced soon after. Her life is, needless to say, a total wreck. I have seen the pictures. What's more, her younger sister has COMPLETELY followed in her footsteps, and is also a young single mother who did not complete her high school education. Whenever I see pictures of these girls now, they look very, very unhappy. Religion is not a cure-all and families do not always tie their values and beliefs to sexual decisions. Some do, and in that case, those children are likely to be well armed to face the decisions that are coming. But most children, from all areas, from all religions, from all class and income levels, need a simple, informative, educational briefing on the effects of that impending roll in the hay. I paid attention in sex ed, and unlike poor Shannon and Colleen, I have no children, have never been married, and have had only one sexual partner in my 26 years. Why? Because, they told me about the diseases that can make you STERILE, like chlamydia, a very, very common STD. We all know people who have caught THAT one. I learned about things that made me say, "You know what, I'm COOL. I'll just wait a while". I'm not religious, so that's not why I stayed abstinent. Since Books might have SOMETHING "nice" to say about this, I'll just tell you that I WAS catholic because I wanted to find god. I love to sing, and that's when and where I felt closest to "god"...the church choir. I come from a really dramatic and ugly childhood, and struggled with chronic and extreme anxiety until adulthood. I clung to religion with hopes that I could find god, and feel safe from any number of looming threats. I eventually gave up on catholicism, but I still find comfort in the church, and in the music. I am not prejudiced against religion. It was the bible that I went to when I was panicking through the night, terrified that the end of the world was upon us. My father was a BIG fan of Revelations... What were you saying about religious zealots again???

Any issue can be dissected to this point. But why do we need to do this. Almost EVERYONE will eventually have sex. Safe or not. That crosses all boundaries, religious or otherwise. If you want to over analyze it, you could say that ethics are being taught when you teach kids about STDs, but why would you want to do that? Kids need to know. If a parent doesn't want a child to take part in the class, they won't give permission. If they don't want their child going to a school where OTHER children are given sex ed, THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. THAT'S WHEN THEY CAN CHOOSE A SCHOOL DESIGNED TO FIT THEIR BELIEFS, RELIGOUS OR OTHERWISE, PERFECTLY. That's all I'm saying. And I do find some of your arguments ignorant. Sorry.

Do you two even remotely realize you're both going in this huge gigantic cricle that some people like to a call a lose-lose situation consdiering that you're both close-minded people (like everyone in the world is) who have opinions on things and are desperately trying to one up the other? Yes, that was a a runon sentence so it should have 2 punctuation marks on the end. By the by, that was my way of saying "hey you''re both rather silly and silly is putting it politely." Seriously, Browns argument simply went down to constatnly saying you had no point and now yours has too AngelinaH. You're setting a great example for the kids...really you are. And no, my point was not to pove my superiority when I was talking about the Federalist Essays. Knowing neither of you have probably read any of the 87 of them I went ahead and decided to see if I could get this topic off on a tangent before it absolutely became full of rants like this. Didn't work obviously because you're both too damn stubborn. God I love this world.

Dylan I agree with you to point. I'm a bit frustrated, and I'm sure it shows. It is a bit of a run around. But to say I don't have a point is going to far. My points are simple, and have not changed. I won't reiterate them here, but I think my argument has stayed the same throughout this merry go round. I'm not sure why this makes me close-minded, considering I never saw a good argument for why parents should shape sex ed on a local level. Stubborn, maybe. But not close minded. I feel strongly that religion should be a personal thing, a community thing, but not a government program thing. I'm debating a position, not looking for a fight. Off the topic, what's up with this? ------------------>>>

"And no, my point was not to prove my superiority when I was talking about the Federalist Essays. Knowing neither of you have probably read any of the 87 of them... " wow.

Dylan,
If everyone in the world is close minded (thereby making discussions of this sort fruitless) why waste (y)our time giving us your opinion? Wouldnt your time be better spent reciting a Ben Frankiling pamhplet in front of a mirror? Really, doe.

And by saying my point was that she has no point is to miss the point. I asked a question, proposed my answer and waited for a reason to think my answer was wanting. All I got was handwaving and a pointless, undefended reference to a single thinker in early American history.

Angelina, thank you for apologizing for thinking my arguments are ignorant. It takes real humility to recognize your inability to grasp an argument. Props.

As a whole, though, I will say I've found the anti-religious sentiment on these message boards disturbing (although not entirely alarming--lazy thinking dominates our culture). Is it too naive for me to think that convesations of this sort would move beyond high school level rants and name calling?


And now I'm trying to think of something offensive and funny to say, but cant...partially, bc your posts are uninspiring.

I think I'll take that warm glass of milk for myself.

I didn't appoligize for thinking your arguments are ignorant. I'm just sorry if that hurts your feelings. The reason you don't get a response is because you aren't looking. You are only interested in "hearing" yourself "speak". You are not paying attention to anyone's actual position, but instead, paying attention to how you can discredit and invalidate them. Intelligence is being able communicate with people on any level. I'm tired of arguing with you. "takes real humility to recognize your inability to grasp an argument." Good god! All you want to do is insult other people so you can feel like you're superior to me and others. I've seen your other posts. This is your MO. I'm sorry that it takes this kind of bullying for you to feel secure in your intelligence. What a waste of a good mind. Thanks for being such a downer.

Angelina,
I know you werent apologizing for not grasping my arguments, I was just attempting to add humor so as to lighten the mood a little. Ive had enough conversatins to be able to recognize when people arent able to distinguish btw critiques of a view and critiques of a person. You somehow thought I was saying something about you by saying something about your argument (although, again, you never really made a clear one). Im sorry you feel this process is such a downer, Im usually invigorated by mental exercises of this sort (althought this wasnt necessarily the case here). I

We did have a chance though: we couldve discussed the arugments I raised about not being able to teach sex ed with a sex ethics that is offensive to many tax payers. I aslo raised the question of what role might parents legitimately play in the development and execution of any curriculum.

There was even a time I thought Dylan was going to defend his argument that minority groups work against democracy by advocating for their views. He or course didnt, he backed away and said he just wanted to quote the Federalist Essays so as to demonstrate 1) his knowledge and 2) how narrowminded he thought some early americans to be.

I think my previous posts on other topics are similar to my posts here in that I focus on the weakness of a position, point it out and ask for a defense of the position. I wil sometimes claim a position is irrational or false, and of course, some people take this as an invalidation of their person. Im still learning to identify and avoid conversation partners of this sort bc of reasons identifiable in your posts (eg, you react with name calling bc you think Im calling you names by saying your arguments are weak).

Im not sure Im intersted in demonstrating, as you say, my superiority over others, as much as demonsrating the reasonableness of my view over other views. Please recognize the difference, or anticipate this type of exchange with anybody who finds your reasoning weak. uh, sorry.

pedanteria destila de booksbrown. jaja, se avala en religion, se avala en dios, obvio que nunca va a estar mal... es un caso perdido...