Since when was it a bad idea to teach abstinence in schools? Isn't it the responsibility of the school to better it's students and to keep them out of trouble? I recently read an article in the Washington Post that seems rather troubling to me. The article was titled "Christian Sex-Ed Lesson Criticized"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031400013.html
I don't have a lot of time to sum it up because I really need sleep, but basically comedian Keith Deltano made a performance at three Louden County high schools which was designed to inform students and promote absitenence while using comedy as a tool to engage the students. The critics argued that the comdian used fear and misrepresentation of facts to give his message. One of the comments on this point was that he dangled a cinderblock above a male students genitals to demonstrate the risk of condom failure. Now I can see where this can be considered a "misrepresentation of facts" (argued based on the fact that condoms are more effective than the demonstration made them out) but the "fact" is that this was a comedian and the program was done with a slight comical air to it. The nature of comedy means that ideas are going to be slightly exaggerated. The comedian made his point and exaggerated it to add humor. Critics argued that this demonstration left the students with a fear of sexual activity. Now that sounds like a joke to me. If seeing something like this makes a student feel scared than they must not watch the news or television or really anything for that matter. The current sex-ed classes which promote contraceptives generally leave students feeling safe that contraceptives will always work. There is a postive spin on contraceptives and the message of this comedian was just giving a different spin. He gave contraceptives a negative spin while promoting abstinence which is fail safe. I never knew it was detrimental to teach students that the best thing to do is not to have sex until they're ready.
The thing that gets me is that the speakers background was brought into the picture. They brought into play that he is a Christian. The article itself stated that religious speakers have to sign a contract requiring them to stick to a secular message. So why should the fact that the comedian is a christian have anything to do with the debate about his performance. He did not in any way introduce his religion into the message, it was simply a message to encourage abstinance. Are people so caught up in debating about religion that they'd rather have their kids learning that sex is great and there are no consequences if you use protection than to have a speaker who happens to hold christian beliefs talk to the kids about absitenance?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Critisizing schools should get if they DONT teach abstinence. GOD isnt the pregnancy rates enough to tell us this! Good blog visit mine (=:
Em <3
The current sex-ed classes which promote contraceptives
uhhh. WHAT current sex-ed classes promote contraceptives? Most American sex-ed classes promote abstinance without giving sufficient information about contraceptives and safe sex.
Many studies show that abstinence programs in school DO NOT WORK. Kids are going to have sex whether you want them to or not.
Take a look at the rates of teen STDs and pregnancies in Europe, where safe sex is taught and promoted from an early age, and in America, where it is not.
Many American Sex-Ed classes are loaded with information and statistics on contraceptives and they used to pass out condoms to students regularly. Granted that doesn't happen any more but there is still a lot of information. And I know that some schools don't give a lot of information but that is mostly due to unequipped instructors and a poor stress on balancing information. My point is that there is no reason abistinence should not be taught to students (just because condoms might be safer, abstinence is still more effective). Your argument that "kids are going to have sex whether you want them to or not" is apathetic and doesn't make sense. That's like saying that people are going to break the law so we shouldn't have any. Recognizing problems and working to fix them is how we grow as a society, not by recognizing them and not caring.
But that's besides the point. The point was that the comedian in no way kept the school from giving any other sex-ed program that would promote contraceptives. He gave a different opinion which put a positive spin on abstinence and a negative spin on contraceptives. It's just another side to the story and with many of your arguments that kids know more than we give them credit for, that should be more than ok. Giving them both sides of the argument allows them to make more educated decisions. And just because the speaker was a Christian doesn't mean that the program (which was secular) should be criticized.
And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
Your argument that "kids are going to have sex whether you want them to or not" is apathetic and doesn't make sense. That's like saying that people are going to break the law so we shouldn't have any.
Your analogy is bad. But first: teaching abstinence is a good idea. But teaching abstinence-ONLY is a terrible, terrible idea that has always failed and will always fail. Get used to it.
Your analogy is wrong. Saying that "kids are going to have sex whether we want them to or not" isn't like not having laws because there will be crime either way; it's more like saying, "There will be crime no matter what, so we shouldn't bother to try and prevent crimes from happening." The fact that you compare sex to crime bothers me, too: are you so afraid of your body and the bodies of others that you actually see sex as a crime?
Abstinence is effective. But abstinence-only education is not practical. Refusing to teach children about contraception is not only irresponsible, it's evidence that you are living in a dream world made of sunshine and rainbows coming from the asses of unicorns who hop over candy-filled lakes.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
I never said to teach abstinence only. I said that there should be a balance. What I said was this guys abstinence program should not be criticized when they are perfectly capable of running another program right after it that teaches about contraceptives. It's a different view of the same issue and shouldn't be silenced. My main point was that the argument seems mostly founded on the fact that the guy is a Christian and he's taking heat for it when his message was secular and should have nothing to do with his background.
Nevertheless, sex for minors (which is the whole point of the sex-ed program) IS a crime. I don't believe that sex in itself is a crime. My analogy was to the point that just as crime is a problem, sex in teenagers is a problem. The kids are not developed enough to handle what they are doing and think about long term effects. Nine year olds having sex will affect their life forever and they're not ready for it. It is immoral to let this kind of activity continue without doing things to stop it and without fully educating kids on the dangers that it carries and the life changing effects. As it is, since kids think that nothing will ever affect them, I don't think its such a bad idea to have a little fear about the dangers that sex holds even if you use contraceptives. Most of the programs now have a safety feeling about contraceptives, which is good because they help, but this program that shows the danger contraceptives are still not perfect helps to balance that by teaching the kids that things can and do happen to them.
And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
[quote]Nine year olds having sex will affect their life forever and they're not ready for it.[/quote]
Er... nine year olds don't usually get sex ed at all. I was referring more to kids aged 13+.
FYI many nine-year-olds have sexual experiences that do not harm them in the least.
Just because it doesn't do anything to them physically doesn't mean it doesn't harm them psychologically. It alters the way they deal with relationships and their perspective on everything much more than you think. Secondly, I used "nine year olds" to emphasize that the age is getting younger and younger that the "it happens" attitude is telling kids its ok to do these things. Doesn't change much for what 13 year olds need to be taught in schools...FYI
And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
Does it? I know many people who as children played sexual games and suffered no psychological harm from it.
*duplicate
The simple fact is that abstinece-only education is ineffective. Yes, abstinence is the only sure-fire way not to get pregnant, or to catch an STD. But the reality is that no matter what you tell them, some kids are going to experiment with sex, and if you don't give those kids the information they need to minimize the risks associated with sex, then the overall number of pregnancies and infections increase.
percivale
Obviously abstinence only doesn't work. If it did then there would be no teen pregnancy or STD's. I believe sex-ed classes need to simply go down the line of every popular/safe contraceptive and rate their effectiveness. Condoms and birth control obviously will rain superior over everything else. Lastly it is easy to mention that kids don't have to worry about any of these things if they chose not to engage in sexual activities. To me there is not point in "teaching," heavily about abstinence. Mainly because there is nothing to teach...OK kids don't have sex and you won't have a baby. Not complicated.
There is simply no way a teacher can explain to students the real effects of sex, which are emotional. That is unteachable and I believe is the true value of sex. The fact that its unique and different every time is one of the many reasons people are attracted to sex at a young age. Anyways you can't teach around that fact.
Wear condoms kids!!
Have a Nice Day.
T
Again I will say that I do not think that abstinance only is the way to go. But I disagree that there is nothing to teach. The thing is that if kids aren't taught about what sex is and what it means emotionally, about what the connection should be between people, than they're going to experiment. They dont' know a whole lot so they have to figure it out on their own. Abstinence education isn't there to say if you don't have sex you can't have kids. Yeah that is obvious. But many kids don't ever hear that it's ok to wait. Many kids don't hear that many adults consider it honorable and desirable to wait. With peer pressure and experimentaion so prominent it's hard for kids to understand that and it takes a lot of complicated explanation about what sex really is. People focus entirely too much on the physical aspects and schools never really teach any kind of commitment between partners. I strongly believe that a better developed abstinance program can be effective..and yes teach the kids that condoms are safe too.
People say it doesn't matter but I say that's wrong. I say that because I've experienced it. I have a child that was not conceived in wed-lock. My fiance and I love each other more than I could explain and we understand our mistake. I say this mainly because of my own fault in judgement. My parents taught me very well that sex was something that should be between two people who love each other with a special love. Two people who love each other exclusively enough to get married. As I got older though, there was a lot of other information coming in. Most of that included stuff like yeah its good to wait but hey if you use a condom there shouldn't be any harm done. It's a hard time to deal with all that when you have these images of "everyone's doing it" in your head and at that age where its hard to listen to anything your parents tell you. I always believed I would wait until I was married but letting all those thoughts slip in somehow you just end up giving them more and more room to float around and stay at the front of your mind until you talk yourself into beliving them. That's how I ended up sleeping with the first girl. After that I started dating my fiance who is absolutly amazing. I made a commitment to change things around and to do things right. That was really great and I learned so much. She helped me to grow and our relationship developed so strongly without worrying about sex. It makes you think about each other instead of yourself and how you can work your way into "getting some" But old habits die hard and it was really hard not to have the same problem. Part of that is that I had learned to express myself so physically that it was hard to find other ways to show her that I cared about her more than anyone else. It was really good to learn how to express myself in other ways though and that's what made our relationship strong even though we did make that mistake. But I love her and I love my kid and that won't change. What does change is how I learn to respect her and to show her how much I really care. Contrary to popular school belief, sex does not mean love. Yes, sex can be an enjoyable part of love but it's much more enjoyable when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt why that person is with you and that it has nothing to do with sex. Otherwise it's just physical and that's what schools don't teach.
And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
My problem with abstinence only education is the fact that it is abstinence only until marriage education which does support a religious and moral ideal that not everyone should be expected to live up to. The fact is that high school education can affect a persons whole life, especially sex education. My last sex education experience was in high school. It isn't a crime for me to have premarital sex, and it isn't a crime for people over 16 or 18 to have premarital sex but they still may not have the information to make safe decisions. I believe that sex ed should be comprehensive, because it is the parents responsibility to tell their child whether or not to wait until marriage for sex. And, ultimately, it is a personal decision that everyone has the chance and right to make. Abstinence only education plays down that decision and makes people believe that premarital sex is wrong, although there are many people out there who don't believe that it is.