That last sentence for sure does not belong in a discussion of “the basic facts of the human reproductive system.” It is not a school’s business to be telling children that they should never have sex until and unless they’re in a committed relationship and wish to become parents, no matter how appealing it may sound to you personally.
“Most people develop sexual interest in members of the opposite sex, some in members of the same sex, and some in both.” That’s a “basic physiological fact of the human reproductive system” that should not go unmentioned.
But the vast majority of ninth-graders do not yet need to know many Business Math topics such as checkbook balancing and interest calculation. Moreover, we teach them in Social Studies how our legislative procedures and electoral system work, even though they aren’t participating in those yet either. You cannot successfully wiggle away from the fact that school instruction provides children with a great deal of practical knowledge that we do not expect or wish them to put into practice right away, and I see no reason not to include knowledge about birth control in that category.
If it comes to that, they could find out information about checkbook balancing or the electoral system from other sources too. The point is that we want to teach them things that are going to be important or valuable for them to know as adult human beings. And you just agreed that information about birth control is indeed an almost universal desideratum.
I am not, as you claim, “disregarding” your argument that teaching children about birth control implies tacit acceptance of sex for minors; I am disagreeing with your claim of its validity. Personally, I was taught about various means of birth control in seventh-grade sex ed (it was there that I first heard the old joke “What do you call a couple who practice coitus interruptus? — Parents.”), and I never imagined for a second that anybody was suggesting that it was okay that I act on that knowledge before adulthood (nor, for the record, did I do so).
Perhaps, however, we could find a way out of this impasse by means of your “explicit parental consent” comment. Parents who are convinced that telling teenagers about birth control sends the wrong message could freely refuse permission for their children to attend the part of the sex-ed course in which birth control is discussed. How’s that for a compromise?
Chaim, teaching kids about birth control will not make them run out and start having sex (Heck, in my experience, it’s the kids who knew very little about sex and birth control who had sex the earliest–and not very safely, either). Even people who get married young might need to know about birth control; lots of people don’t want to have children the first few years of their marriage, particularly if they’re in their teens. This is information that, even if the teenager waits until they are 18 or older, can be vitally useful within a few years with potentially disasterous results if ignored. Not every child has a parent who they can talk to about sex, or who even knows anything about birth control.
There is also a fair amount of evidence that while comprehensive sex ed can delay intercourse (and does not increase sexual intercourse), abstinence-only programs have been ineffective in this regard. http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/capsweb/publications/abstinencemono.html
“Yet Kirby’s comprehensive review leaves little ambiguity about the general lessons of research on educational programs to reduce teen pregnancy and STD rates. Based on the six peer-reviewed, published studies of abstinence-only programs, Kirby reports that, ‘None of these studies found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse, and at least one study provided strong evidence that the program did not delay the onset of intercourse. Thus, the weight of the evidence indicates that these abstinence programs do not delay the onset of inter-course.’…Kirby found that research was far more conclusive- and favorable - on the broad category of programs that address both abstinence and contraception…”
As for more comprehensive sex ed programs:
“Evaluations of these programs strongly support the conclusion that sexuality and HIV education curricula do not increase sexual intercourse, either by hastening the onset of intercourse, increasing the frequency of intercourse, or increasing the number of sexual partners…Further, these studies indicate that some, but not all of these programs reduced sexual behavior, either by delaying the onset of intercourse, reducing the frequency of intercourse, or reducing the number of sexual partners…some, but not all, of the programs increased condom use or contraceptive use…” [Dr. Douglas Kirby]
Well, there you have it. The problem lies somewhere in the current “balance” between access to sexual information and its stigmatization in society. Now where does the solution lie? You suggest that it lies in less stigmatization. Conservatives suggest that it lies in greater stigmatization. Certainly a valid disagreement, but hardly hypocricy on the part of the conservatives.
Again, the question is not whether or not to do it, but how. You consider giving them access to the information necessary to have sex without conceiving children or contracting disease to be a means of teaching maturity. Conservatives see teaching them to control their impulses for the greater good of society and their and their children’s futures to be a better way to teach maturity. A disagreement with you…not hypocricy on their part.
No one should be forced. However, they should be encouraged to not do so unless they have a commitment to something other than their own selfish pleasure. Selfishness = immaturity. Putting others before your desire for physical pleasure = maturity.
Well, that depends on one’s idea of fulfillment, but that’s an entirely different question and not germane to the subject at hand. I am well aware that contraceptives seldom fail. However, abstinence never fails. And I can’t think of a single case in which a person died for lack of sex. Yes, it’s a major life activity, and quite a fun one as well, but waiting to do it until one is capable of accepting responsibility for other lives is hardly like refraining from food, drink or sleep.
Kimstu:
Objection sustained, counselor. You’re right; that should be covered by the parents as well, in the category of the last thing I wrote.
Nor did I mean it to. I merely supplied a summary; this is certainly an appropriate sub-fact for inclusion.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Balancing a checkbook is no different from managing a budget; in fact, many banks offer checking accounts for young 'uns. Understanding of our government, although not something that the kids can affect by voting on, is of immediate value for two reasons I can come up with off the top of my head: firstly, it outlines the basic principles our system of government is founded on: consent of the governed, checking and balancing of power, balance of local vs. centralized control, economic freedom, respect for judicial precedent, etc. All of these are principles that can be applied to one’s life in general, to varying degrees. The second reason is that while they cannot vote, they can still affect issues through activism, but that activism will need to be directed toward the proper targets, and it will need to be performed with an eye toward not badly affecting other important issues.
I, on the other hand, knew nothing of birth control other than that I was expected to control my own desires, and I never for a second imagined that it would be so difficult to do so that I’d need to know of some backup system that would prevent me from suffering the consequences of not being able to do so (and I, for the record, did not do so).
So there are plenty of anecdotal examples of both approaches which worked properly. The question is which approach works better on a large scale.
I’d prefer the opposite compromise: It’s not taught unless the parent signs a release for the child to learn it. That’s what I mean by explicit parental consent, i.e., there’s a mature mind making the decision that the child is ready to handle that sort of information. Your way would be implicit consent, i.e., assuming the child to be ready for the info unless a parent decided otherwise. And since when does our society endorse the idea of assuming a child to be mature?
I give up, Chaim, you win. I’m going over to my girlfriends place now. I’ll cause greater harm, take greater risks and commit greater sins by driving my car over there than when I’m screwing her. Besides, even though I’m 36 and she’s in her 40’s and a college professer, we’re both too immature to vote, so YIPPEE!
Man, Chaim, you’re making one hell of a stand here… my part follows:
A lot of the “pro-condom” (or whatever) argument seems to discount the mental mindset of your average 14- or 15-year-old. Give them something, they wanna use it. Give them five bucks, they want to spend it. Give them a soda, they want to drink it. Give them a movie, they want to watch it. Give them a condom, they want to… well, you get the idea.
What’s so horrible about telling kids that they don’t have to go out and get laid? Sqweels, Kimstu, you’re making the very notion of abstinence seem like Fascism. I don’t think we should outright accept the idea of “it’s going to happen anyway”. Murder is going to happen anyway, right? Let’s teach school students how to slit each others’ throats!
No matter how strong the desire is, ultimately, having sex is a conscious decision. I don’t care how strong the burning in your loins is… nobody’s going to have sex without some sort of decision to go through with the act takes place (this doesn’t include rape, of course, since that’s something different altogether).
There’s a difference between two mature adults using a contraceptive than two 15-year-old kids using a contraceptive… at that time in their life, the hormones are burning stronger, they’re not completely used to their bodies, they’re not completely in control of the passions driving through them… two kids, making out and moving onto more “serious” business, are NOT going to stop in the middle of what they’re doing, slide a condom over the guy’s penis, and then continue on. They’re going to continue right into the act of intercourse, going full-throttle, and twenty minutes later the girl’s going to scream “Oh, crap, I might be pregnant!” The guy will get scared, and both their lives will be temporarily disrupted (permanently disrupted if she really IS pregnant).
Whereas, mature adults have a much higher chance of recognizing such possibilities in the heat of the moment and doing something about them.
As to address the “Sex-Ed” issue… homosexual sex has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction. So where’s the argument on that one?
(Yeesh, this has changed from a “Conservative Contradictions” thread to a “Contraception Contradictions” thread…)
Chaim, never let it be said you were an unprincipled or unthoughtul man. Although I disagree with you on almost everything , at least you aren’t irrational. I just had to mention, though:
Didn’t you ever see “Johnny Dangerously”?
SPOOFE:
I was about to say that there may be a genuine and useful physiological and evolutionary reason for this, but then I realized that if one is a theist, one could as easily argue that God or whoever designed us that way to teach us control. So nevermind.
Spoofe, you didn’t read my post carefully enough. I pointed out that saying to kids “never have sex until you and your committed partner want to be parents” is inappropriate in a discussion of “the basic physiological facts of the human reproductive system.” Facts about the basic biology of human sexuality (wh ich includes the existence of homosexuality, by the way) belong in such a discussion: sermonizing about the appropriate sexual morality for all of one’s future life does not.
However, I have been saying till I am blue in the fingers that sex ed should also include information about birth control and that that instruction should include strongly discouraging students from having sex before they are mature adults! I certainly don’t think that recommending abstinence is the equivalent of fascism: I merely don’t agree with Chaim that recommending abstinence is the only thing school should ever tell kids about birth control.
And on that note, Chaim said:
Well, I think Gaudere’s citations above provide some evidence that in fact, the combined approach that I’m recommending works better.
I’d prefer the official policy on such an important subject to default to information rather than ignorance. But we can agree to disagree on that.
I apologize, Kimstu, you’re correct… I re-read your post… looks like my mind was thinking “There was some mention of birth-control… what was it? What was it?” and that got crosswired with some other stuff and… oh, nevermind.
Anyway, this is assuredly one of the more complex issues to discuss, mostly since at least half of it is completely subjective, and the other half is dependent on that subjectivity.
I don’t like the notion of kids going willy-nilly, doing whatever they please, without any consideration to the consequences (which is REALLY weird for me to type, since I’m just a kid myself). However, we can’t limit a person’s scope of experience, either.
I imagine, just like many other things, that there has to be a balance… we can’t inform kids about birth control when they’re too young, and shouldn’t wait 'til they’re too old, either. The decision of “when they’re old enough” is definitely a subjective notion… some mature faster than others, for example. But I don’t think you need to tell kids about condoms in school… they’ll hear about it as they grow older, when the time comes, from other sources. Telling them about condoms (and other contraceptives) makes them think, “Oh, cool, they’re trusting me with this information, it must be okay to have sex now! Wow-wee!”
And don’t tell me that’s innaccurate, because I was there only a couple years ago, along with all me other buddies. How I survived, I don’t know… ::sigh::…
Spoofe, I was just thinking about this and wondering why my sex ed course seems to have succeeded both at giving us important information about birth control and at not giving us the impression that it was okay to have sex just then. I think there were two main factors involved:
Timing. That course was part of health class in seventh grade, when most kids were around twelve: old enough to need information about puberty but not old enough to have “dating” as a big part of their social life already.
Language. I remember that everything we read and heard about sex referred to “men” and “women”: “the man’s sperm fertilizes the woman’s ovum” and so on all through the story.
The discussion of physical changes at puberty, on the other hand, referred to “girls” and “boys”. The strong implication was that sex was something for adults, which I think is very important to convey to kids.
As long as this topic is totally hijacked anyway, I’m going to ask another question that I’ve been wondering about. The sex-ed debates between conservatives and liberals (like this one) too often go to extremes, with conservatives insisting that teens simply should not have sex and liberals insisting that it’s no use denying the fact that they do. Maybe it would be more productive to ask: if teens should not be having sex, what should they be having instead?
After all, sex for adolescents is not the same as adolescent sexuality, which most cultures have been willing to indulge to some limited extent. (Some medieval societies recognized a sort of “temporary sweetheart” status connected with Valentine’s Day festivities; some early modern ones had the custom of “bundling” for unmarried couples; teen parties around 1940 (if Dad was telling the truth!) involved a certain amount of kissing; and if you can believe Anais Nin, some post-WWI aunts explained oral sex (!) to their nieces.) Mind you, I’m not talking about very observant religious cultures (Mormon, Hasidic, Shi’ite, whatever) that strongly regulate the sexual behavior of adults too: such cultures tend to prohibit all sexual expression between young people but they also tend to promote early marriage, so they don’t have quite the same issues to deal with. I’m saying: in secular culture as a whole, we permit collaboration and socializing and friendship among adults regardless of gender, and we leave the issue of sex up to the individual ethics and principles of the parties involved. But for our youth, while we permit collaboration and socializing and friendship regardless of gender, we strongly discourage their actually having sex. But we can’t just say “don’t don’t don’t” and nothing else, without destroying the message that desire and sex are good things that will eventually enrich their lives. So what adolescent expressions of that should society tolerate (and even encourage, in the guise of mushy sentimental stuff) while still not encouraging sex itself?
Kimstu (waiting for the mods to shut this hopelessly hijacked thread down…)
Okay, okay, seriously… I don’t think that sex is a big part of day-to-day operations for a kid, so I’m sure you didn’t mean “what should they do to fill up all that wasted time…”
Truthfully, I don’t know. I myself am still really young (compared to those that are more experienced), and I’m hardly the average kid. Sex? What is that? Does it involve the Internet?
Okay, here’s my bit: When I say sex, I mostly refer to “an act that can result in pregnancy”… that is, “penis goes in vagina” sex. While any sort of sexual interaction is a bit foolhardy, in my opinion, the “Big Enchilada” should be avoided by teens. Oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation… fun activities, and not in danger of creating a baby (now I know Chaim is gonna feel betrayed by this, since I’ve been agreeing with him the whole time… sorry, Chaim, you’re still a pillar of wisdom!)
I dislike the thought of birth control because that only applies in vaginal sex, and therefore encourages kids to go for vaginal sex without exploring the other alternatives.
So you see, when I’m referring to “sex”, in this thread, at least, I’m not talking about all forms of sexual contact.
(If this seems to contradict what I’ve posted earlier, my apologies… I should have been clearer earlier)
Spoofe: Good idea. Whoopi Goldberg agrees with you and so do I. However, judging from my own experience, it will be a cold day in hell before anyone so much as breathes the words “oral sex” or “mutual masturbation” in a sex ed. class. Remember Joycelyn Elders?
, at least you aren’t irrational. I just had to mention, though: