We had an AIDS lady come to our school a few weeks ago and talk to us about how one would go about getting it. You can get AIDS this way, but only if both people have a cut or sore. It cannot be acquired from saliva.
I had your standard public school sex education - pretty comprehensive, stressing abstinence but also providing information on birth control options and STD prevention. I knew all of that stuff. In the end, though, I truly did not believe it could happen to me. I wasn’t stupid - I was at the top of my class, president of the National Honor Society, editor of yearbook, blah blah - in fact, I felt pretty invincible. Remember being 17?
I knew about birth control. I did use condoms, most of the time. One night, out of teenage-love-driven desperation, I decided not to. I became pregnant with my son when I was 17, and gave birth when I was 18. I lost my virginity not too much earlier than when I conceived.
Many times since I have looked back and thought about what might have stopped me from taking such a huge risk with my life, why I decided to ignore the warnings of parents, teachers, counselors, everyone who might have known better than I. Looking back, I think it boiled down to a streak of rebelliousness and a sense of being indestructible - a pretty bad combination, and a pretty common one 17-year-olds.
So yep, I made an error in judgment. But once that happened, once I realized I was fallible and vulnerable, I swore to myself to never take that risk again. And I haven’t, and I won’t. So now, I’m using that education I received in high school to prevent another pregnancy or contracting an STD. It may have not gotten through to me the first time, but it’s for damn sure gotten through since.
The only thing I can add to the sex education curricula that might be helpful is having speakers come in and discuss the consequences of their actions. I know of some people living with AIDS who speak to sex ed classes to show them the reality of their lives. I don’t think this is a scare tactic, it’s giving kids a look at the truth. Having a teen mom come in and speak to kids might give them a sense of what it’s like to be there - maybe get rid of some of the “It can’t happen to me” and “I could handle having a baby” ideas that many teens have, and a chance to pass the fruits of experience to people who need that information. By the way, I really hate the idea of having teens walk around with a bag of flour or an egg to teach them what it’s like to have a baby. It’s crap, and teaches you nothing except “don’t drop the baby”. The 3 a.m. feedings and constant crying of my son’s infancy were a cakewalk compared to getting him to do his homework, trying to balance work and home, answering the hundred questions he has a day, and worrying about what I’ll tell him about his father. Why couldn’t someone have told me that?
I just started volunteering with a support and education group for teen moms, aged 13 - 19. Some of the girls have two or more children. Two of them say they never received any information on birth control or STD prevention in schools (they went to Catholic schools) and although they knew they could get pregnant, they didn’t know they could buy condoms when they were younger than 18, or that they could get the Pill without their parents’ consent. The sexual health information our group has provided is the first they’ve received. To me, that’s not only wrong, that’s dangerous. I say, give kids the facts - keeping them ignorant is asking for more trouble.
I can’t speak for all STD’s, but back when I worked in a hospital, we had a patient with oral syphilis and I can assure you, it’s not pretty.
I believe it’s also possible for gonnorhea to be transmitted orally, but I’m not positive. However, for decades newborn babies had silver nitrate eyedrops applied because it is possible to transmit gonnorhea germs in the birth canal through the eye membranes.
I would just like to make a distinction here that seems to have been passed over:
Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing the spread of STDs; the teaching of abstinence, however–which is after all the subject of this debate–is a miserable failure in this regard.
Ah ha! I think this may be what WB refers to.
Basically, the argument is that abstinence-only programs are identical to the religious right’s message on sex, that the schools are communicating support of this message as a religious edict.
Personally, I find these features of the program, especially the last statement, to have little connection to facts or secular purposes.
However, it seems in general abstinence is acknowledged by the Supreme Court as a secular value, and the fact that it coincides with religious themes is no more reason to disallow its teaching than it would be to disallow teaching that murder is wrong.
My take is that full information should be given to kids to protect public health, as well as the individuals involved. But I don’t think that’s constitutionally mandated. I’d say teaching that abstinence is the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy/STDs is legally acceptable, but statements like “There’s No Way To Have Premarital Sex Without Hurting Someone,” are not factual, and are completely grounded in a religious moral code, and thus should be excluded from public schools.
Well, I guess they don’t teach about lube, then… 
I oppose abstinence-only programs because they seem less effectual than the alternative, and I tend to err on the side of giving people all the facts. As well, if that’s any evidence of how they teach, they’re teaching bullshit, and the kids will likely doubt everything they hear.
Well, now it’s tomorrow, Bucko. Did you get that information, or should we write this thread off as more of your misinformed nonsense?
*Originally posted by 2nd Law *
In all fairness lawyer dude, it seems like your not very observant or your just plain ass blind but the info was posted by Aeryn above. Did you think I made it up or something?
Thanks Aeryn that talk show host still hasn’t returned my call.
So, if this is indeed the case you were talking about, where is your admission that you got the facts wrong. Or that your radio guy did. The facts, as presented in the site by Aeryn, are exactly as was suggested by the other posters, that the lawyer was not advocating that abstinence not be taught at all, but rather, "abstinence only programs not be taught. A very real, and as others have shown, important difference.
Please, let’s hear it? Bill admitting he was wrong that his source was wrong, that his assumptions were wrong, and there fore that his conclusions were wrong.
Sorry if I was unclear- I meant through oral sex, not kissing. I know that AIDS is transmitted through fluids containing large amounts of cellular material, which saliva does not (nor does urine, I believe).
And Bill- chill out. 2nd Law was merely asking if you had followed up on your own info, as you had said you would. No need to flame. Maybe it would be better to have more info before starting a thread about something, especially if it’s a potentially inflammatory subject. Just a thought, not meant to be mean.
Ej,
I don’t want to start a flame war either but it seemed to me 2nd law was being a cocky and amost applied that I made the story up. Also ej the advice you gave in the last part of your post was not mean at all and made good sense.
Wring, some of my facts may be wrong(happy?) but I don’t think my assumption and conclusions are wrong.
I think when you tell a kid they should abstain and then proceed to show how to put a condom on is sending a mixed signal to the kid.
Example:
You are all for teaching kids to say NO TO DRUGS I presume. Well lets face some kids are going to do drugs anyway. So why not give them free needles and show him how much heroin mix up in order to get a good rush but not to much so they won’t overdose. Or how about cook crack properly? Or what to look for in fake drugs and what is a good price for drugs.
You think come on WB that is not a good analogy well why isn’t it?
It is mixed message. Kids don’t like hyprocricy and telling them to pratice abstinence while showing the how to take the pill and put on a condom is nothing but hyprocricy.
Gundy,
I think you are a very smart(sure you made a mistake but you learned from it) and compassionet( not wanting others to make the same one and doing something about it.) And thanks for seeing my point of “showing” the kids of what could happen to them. Kids want more than just direction they want to know why. I would have not done alot things in my life I think if someone would have showed me what could happen from as the results of my actions. The reason I said “scare” is because you want them to see the bad things that could happen and actually did happen to someone for having premarital sex.
And the “abstinence only” message you’re pushing isn’t a mixed message? “Sex is an emotionally scarring, disease transmitting process until you’re married- then its a beautiful experience.” I don’t think its that simple. Are you really comparing sex ed (news flash- premarital sex is legal) with cooking crack cocaine (crack = not legal)? Am I understanding your position that propaganda used to scare kids into doing what you think is right is preferable to telling them all the facts?
Here’s an idea, WB- how about teaching them the facts about the various forms of birth control and the effectiveness of each method?
Bill, in case you missed this above (sorry to the rest of you):
Sorta contradicts your “assumptions and conclusions,” doesn’t it?
I’ll let someone else stomp on your drugs analogy.
Frankly, I wouldn’t want anyone trying to “scare” my kids out of having sex. I’d rather they waited, but I certainly don’t think it’s something to be afraid of. :rolleyes:
dogsbody,
Heck, You don’t want them to afraid of aids? Come on dude go look at one of those people dying from that horrid disease. I think that is something that I want my kids scared of otherwise they don’t have much sense. Would you be scared to watch your kids die of aids? Come on dude we are talking about DEATH for 20 minutes worth of pleasure in the back seat of a car.
And Mojo,
I think it is that simple. Secondly premarital sex is illegal for teens in alot of places. Now what is your argument?
Back to the drugs one. So what if it is illegal to do drugs kids are still gonna do’em. Wouldn’t be better to at least teach them how. It would be safer would it not if they indeed did them with proper training?
Rule of thumb Bill is that when you have facts wrong, your resulting assumptions and conclusions are also generally wrong. In this case, you assumed that the lawyer was against teaching abstinance at all, hence your tirade. Well, the facts as presented by other people here, were that the attorney was against teaching “abstinance is the only way”, and then others presented additional facts that support his position that teaching abstinence and protection can be shown clinically (that is by peer reviewed methods, not anecdotal speculation) to have a better result (neither method changes the incidence of teens having sexual relations, either by frequency or earliest onset, according to the study linked above, but by teaching abstinence AND protection, the incidence of STD’s is lessened).(thanks Gaudere excellent site!)
One other problem with your analogy of drugs/sex, is that the ‘position’ you take on drugs is "never do 'em " (well, I guess in your case you make exceptions for booze when they’re older and for grass, but I digress), but with sex, the message is “don’t do it now” a much more difficult thing to accomplish - “see, young one, sex is this wonderful, magical thing when it’s between a man and his wife (but not one second before)…”
nice try at an analogy tho. But you’re still wrong. And your radio guy was wrong. Try, next time, to look some of this stuff up before you start on a rant, m’kay?
The other difference, is that by teaching abstinance and protection, we are emphasizing how dangerous unprotected sex can be, and demonstrating how to reduce that danger.
By ‘teaching’ some one how to injest drugs, cook ‘em up and injecting methods etc, this is not teaching them ‘protection’. If it were a true analogy, the sex ed would include descriptions and techniques discussions of various methods of sexual contact (Tab A into slots B, C or D…). and we ain’t doin’ that.
Bill- dogsbody didn’t say that kids shouldn’t be scared of AIDS, just that they shouldn’t be scared of sex. It’s not like you will automatically get AIDS if you have sex. I agree with her. If you stigmatize sex for kids, do you really think they will be able to have good, healthy, enjoyable sex lives later? Unlikely.
And BTW- dogsbody is not a dude, but a lovely lady, and I like her photography- it’s on John Taylor’s website (the cute one from Duran Duran) and you can link to it through her sig.
Bill, of course they should be afraid of contracting AIDS. However, you seem to be saying that sex=AIDS. That ain’t the case. You can say, “AIDS is an awful disease, total abstinence is the only SURE way of not catching it, but if you’re not going to abstain from sex, here’s how best to protect yourself.” Not a mixed message at all.
And your drug “analogy” really is crap. Few people have a biological compulsion (some would say imperative) to do drugs. Most people experience a biological compulsion/imperative to have sex.
That’s exactly what the public schools shouldn’t do. They should not tell a kid he or she should abstain - the school has no role in that conversation. The school should teach - abstinence is the best prevention for STDs and unwanted pregnancy, here are some other methods, here are risks involved with each.
Bullshit. You would have said, “Hell, I’m smarter than that idiot, that won’t happen to me!” At least if you were 16 you would have. What happens to someone else is SO not relevant.
“For” having premarital sex? What, is it punishment or something? It may have happened “as a result of”, Bill, but not “for”. But it’s clear that you’d rather have your kids fed the “party line” rather than being given the facts and the tools to decide for themselves what the right decision is.
And of course, you meant to add at the end of the last quoted sentence, “without using a condom for protection”, right?
hijack
dogsbody- can Nanama really drink out of the drinking fountain?
end hijack
20 minutes? Hm, guess I should send a thank-you note to my last boyfriend… 
Everyone on the planet–except for those sworn to utter celibacy–is probably going to have sex at least once. You can’t say the same for drugs. So your analogy falls apart right there.
Not all teen sex is premartital, and sex within marriage does not extend a magic shield to protect you from STDs and pregnancy. If a young girl gets married, but wants to finish college before having children, shoudn’t she know about birth control? Do you want the man who cheats on his wife–your daughter–to not know about using condoms to protect her from whatever nasties he might pick up from the corner slut? Sure, he shouldn’t do it–but will you demand he stay ignorant just so you feel it is less hypocritical, if it is your daughter’s life at stake? You seem to be willing to let people suffer and die out of ignorance because you think what they do is wrong. Now, it may well be wrong–but wrong enough for them ro deserve to die for it, adn to infect the person they later marry? So your daughter is a virgin and married the man she loves, who was a little randy in his day. Now, he didn’t know about condoms and stuff, so he has several asymptomatic sexual diseases to give to your little girl. Wonderful.
I don’t think ignorance and scare tactics are the answers here. If you really want to reduce premarital sex and slow the spead of STDs, the studies I cited above show that the best way to do it is a comprehensive sex ed program. If teaching kids absolutely everything about drugs actually reduced drug use and those who used drugs did so more safely, I’d be fully supportive of it.
WB: *Secondly premarital sex is illegal for teens in alot of places. Now what is your argument? *
Can’t speak for the other posters, but my argument with this as a proposed reason for teaching abstinence-only is that sex education, like all other education, isn’t supposed to be something you never use after you leave high school. We teach 'em driver’s ed before it’s legal for them to drive; we teach 'em business math before it’s legal for them to fill out tax returns; we teach 'em about the making of laws and the branches of government before it’s legal for them to vote. Education is supposed to involve the conveyance of knowledge that students can use in their future lives too, not just what they have to know right now.
Sex and reproduction are extremely important parts of adult human life, and I do not think it’s fair to the children we’re supposed to be educating if all we tell them about these subjects is “Don’t have anything to do with them before you’re married. And if and when you do have anything to do with them, make sure that first you obtain from somewhere else the necessary factual information about them that we’re refusing to give you.” Bah. As many posters here have argued, what students need and deserve is not just lectures on abstinence, but the Straight Dope about the facts of sex.
Back to the drugs one. So what if it is illegal to do drugs kids are still gonna do’em. Wouldn’t be better to at least teach them how. It would be safer would it not if they indeed did them with proper training?
Bad analogy. As a society that outlaws certain drugs, we have a legitimate interest in discouraging students from ever using illegal drugs, even as adults. (However, we should definitely give them the Straight Dope about adulterated drugs and contaminated needles, not as “proper training” for shooting up but as part of the facts about the dangers of illegal drugs.) Last time I checked, our society had not outlawed sex, at least for most people, and we certainly have no legitimate interest in discouraging students from ever having sex—there will be damn few taxpayers left if we pursue such a policy too vigorously! We should be treating sex like automobile driving in terms of our educational policy: we understand and accept that most people are eventually going to be doing it, so we need to teach them how to do it safely, as well as teaching them when it is wrong or dangerous to do it. Hiding vital information from people who may not know where to find it when they really need it has never yet increased anyone’s maturity or safety.