|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:06 pm
This is the very condensed version of sex ed from my health class:
"Sex is bad if you're not married. You shouldn't have sex before you're married. If you do, you're a bad person. And, you'll get HIV. And all sorts of other STDs. And, you'll ruin your partner's health and life because of this. And so, you shouldn't have sex before you're married. So, don't have sex before marriage, or you'll have a lousy life and a shitty marriage."
...And this is at a public school, in a relatively liberal area.
Now, you know my problem with this? The sex ed part of my health class was basically that, plus a couple of pictures of pregnant teens and the effects of STDs. So, don't have sex, or this'll happen to you.
And this is a waste of time.
See, here's a fact of life: teenagers have sex. And that's not likely to change any time soon. So, since you know that they're going to have sex, why don't you teach them how to have safe sex? WHy is it that all we learn is that we shouldn't screw?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:48 pm
Christ in a can...
That kind of crap can be taken to a legal level. That ain't curriculum; that's preaching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:44 am
It's total bullshit. They don't want to accept that kids have sex, it's as icky to them as the concept of parents having sex is to kids. The issue here is that people need to come to terms with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:59 pm
Grott Christ in a can... That kind of crap can be taken to a legal level. That ain't curriculum; that's preaching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:44 pm
It's beyond a waste of time, it's a tragedy. Beyond not getting the information, they are getting misinformation. Like marriage means you can't get HIV or other STDs? It infuriates me. People need to know this stuff. Telling people they shouldn't have sex isn't going to make them not have sex. It's not even really their business whether they're having it or not. Rawr, I'm really tired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:51 pm
They don't do it, because they don't want to seem to be condoning premarital sex. They're pretty much turning a blind eye to the fact that teens are having sex, at increasing rates and younger ages. Or, maybe it would just cost too much money to pass out free condoms and other contraceptive devices to all the kids at school (actually it probably wouldn't cost that much)...but, who the hell knows.
<3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:59 pm
writercxvii The problem is that it's not preaching, though. It's the actual state-approved curriculum. Also, it takes a very non-religious stance. It's just "society will think less of you", like this stupid video. It is actual curriculum, though. Preach v. to proclaim or make known by sermon Sermon n. any serious speech, discourse, or exhortation, esp. on a moral issue. State approved preaching, then. The bulk of "society" that would think less of you is religious anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:09 pm
I dont think that "abstinence only" sex-ed is the right way to go about it, but I also dont think that handing out free condoms is the way to go either. Preaching only abstinence doesn't teach anyone anything because kids are still gonna do the mattress dance, but handing out condoms is like saying "Here. Go try protected sex! Put forth the knowledge you gained today!" I think that what we need is to just explain everything as well as possible, but also reminding the horndog teens about abstaining every once in a while.
God, I wish they preached a little abstinence around here. There are people walking around with herpes and people bragging about how badly they screwed up because they gave their virginity to [person] only to find out they were jsut booty call. There's a girl who's seven months pregnant in my American history class. There's another girl I see in the halls who's about two months pregnant. It's disgusting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:57 pm
The Tragic Mime I dont think that "abstinence only" sex-ed is the right way to go about it, but I also dont think that handing out free condoms is the way to go either. Preaching only abstinence doesn't teach anyone anything because kids are still gonna do the mattress dance, but handing out condoms is like saying "Here. Go try protected sex! Put forth the knowledge you gained today!" I think that what we need is to just explain everything as well as possible, but also reminding the horndog teens about abstaining every once in a while. God, I wish they preached a little abstinence around here. There are people walking around with herpes and people bragging about how badly they screwed up because they gave their virginity to [person] only to find out they were jsut booty call. There's a girl who's seven months pregnant in my American history class. There's another girl I see in the halls who's about two months pregnant. It's disgusting. You know, if they were having safe sex, they wouldn't be pregnant or have as many STDs. Handing out condoms doesn't say 'go have sex,' it's more like, 'we know you have sex, so have safe sex rather than non-safe sex.' I'm sure you don't agree. Anyway, sex-ed does teach that abstinence is the only way to guarentee protection against STDs and pregnancy. My mom works at Planned Parenthood. She encourages people to not have sex until they're ready. Telling people not to have sex before marriage is a moral thing, so she doesn't venture there, but obviously she teaches that abstinence keeps you safe. Rawr, I'm tired, not sure if I'm making sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:39 pm
I agree with the fact that "abstinence only" thing doesn't work. In my school, the teacher pretty much says "If you wait until marriage, that's fantastic and power to you, if you decide to have sex before marriage, just don't be a dumbass about it." (or something along those lines). But parents are partially at fault too. So many parents either don't care at all or care too much. So in return, kids can do whatever they want and not get into trouble or finally break and rebel against the parents in as harmful a way as possible. (Not that I'm saying they get pregnant just to get their parents back)
In my high school, teenage pregnancy was ridiculous, I knew personally (sorta) 4 girls that where pregnant, one was a freshman... I have also heard of/passed in the halls atleast 6 others that were pregnant (My school wasn't that big to begin with). Many of them would bring their kid to school for a day to kinda show it off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:36 pm
Koravin The Tragic Mime I dont think that "abstinence only" sex-ed is the right way to go about it, but I also dont think that handing out free condoms is the way to go either. Preaching only abstinence doesn't teach anyone anything because kids are still gonna do the mattress dance, but handing out condoms is like saying "Here. Go try protected sex! Put forth the knowledge you gained today!" I think that what we need is to just explain everything as well as possible, but also reminding the horndog teens about abstaining every once in a while. God, I wish they preached a little abstinence around here. There are people walking around with herpes and people bragging about how badly they screwed up because they gave their virginity to [person] only to find out they were jsut booty call. There's a girl who's seven months pregnant in my American history class. There's another girl I see in the halls who's about two months pregnant. It's disgusting. You know, if they were having safe sex, they wouldn't be pregnant or have as many STDs. Handing out condoms doesn't say 'go have sex,' it's more like, 'we know you have sex, so have safe sex rather than non-safe sex.' I'm sure you don't agree. Anyway, sex-ed does teach that abstinence is the only way to guarentee protection against STDs and pregnancy. My mom works at Planned Parenthood. She encourages people to not have sex until they're ready. Telling people not to have sex before marriage is a moral thing, so she doesn't venture there, but obviously she teaches that abstinence keeps you safe. Rawr, I'm tired, not sure if I'm making sense. No, I actually agree. I'm not as hardcore as everyone seems to think I am, I just suck at putting what I mean in writing. And yeah, while a lot of kids are having sex, there's a lot of kids who dont and go "Gee, I've got a condom. What now?" You're making sense, dont worry about it. You've been relevant lately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:10 pm
Well a quote springs to mind about sex education.
'Forewarned is Forearmed'
Selective sex education only, leaves gaps from which the curious nature of youth will try to fill without the backing of information to protect them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:42 pm
As a girl who growed up with abstinence-only, "wait for marriage, you slut" sex ed, I can tell you that it DOES NOT WORK.
Yeah, I ended up having sex. I was almost 16, and we did it once, then stopped for a year because I felt guilty (And when I did do it, I didn't use protection because I didn't understand how it worked, felt guilty/scared about obtaining it, and just all-round embarassed). This guilt I now know is unfounded, and stupid. I don't need to feel guilty about sex. If only I had a parent/loved one tell me that, I wouldn't have stressed out to the point where it caused me some strange problems...
Hell, I thought masterbation was a sin, though not a single person told me so, nor did I read it in the Bible (I don't know if the Bible says anything about it to this day). It was a sin because it had a link to sex. I thought I could get pregnant through masterbation, and even thought I was once when I was ten or something. Turns out I just had the stomach flu. biggrin
Abstinence-only sex ed is not only ridiculous because kids WILL do it, but because that kind of guilt is unhealthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:45 pm
My sex ed: Don't have sex ever, but if you do then use protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:28 pm
Although I have no sources for this (and no real intentions of finding any), from what I last heard of sex education, the United Kingdom (where there is a conservative attitude towards sex education) and the United States (where there is a very conservative attitude towards sex education) have high and very high rates of teen pregnancy respectively. Meanwhile, Sweden (where there is a liberal attitude towards sex education) have a very low rate of teen pregnancy.
Last time I mentioned this (at another forum) a supporter of the more conservative sex education policies said something along the lines of "What works for Sweden won't necessarily work for the US" but I think the point here is that the US hasn't even tried liberal sex-ed. Rather than taking a pragmatic approach to sex-ed (where the best policy is the one shown to produce the best results) the US, as they do in other areas, tend to take a dogmatic approach, where the best policy is decided on despite the evidence and stuck to no matter what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
