Teaching children about STDs and pregnancy begins with facts, not vague references

This article speaks to a sad state of affairs, IMHO. How in the name of Og are kids supposed to learn about reproduction, sexually transmitted disease, and human sexuality if those core issues aren’t presented in a factual manner?

This is High School, and they aren’t taught what a condom is? No anatomical diagrams? No discussion of how pregnancy occurs? Boy-O, I had gotten all of that in health class by the time 9th grade was finished.

Without question, a large degree of responsibility lies with parents, as some kids will be reluctant to ask potentially embarrassing question in front of their peers, but just the same, Johnny and Judy need to learn this stuff before hormones have them doing a lab practical in the back of the minivan.

Warning: Any person who attempts a hijack of this thread for political purposes by noting that it’s in Texas is to be cursed with purulent, weeping sores and premature hard drive failure. :eek:

What really makes me mad is that you can catch a lot of things without ever having intercourse.

Oral sex, kissing, and heavy petting can all be contagious under the right circumstances.

A lot of kids think they’ll abstain from intercourse but everything else is OK. And there are very few teens who make it through their entire high school career without ever french-kissing (although there are a few - I was one! :o )

“Abstinence-only” strikes again.

It suddenly occurs to me that this wouldn’t even bother me if parents actually accepted their effing responsibility and educated their kids at home instead of fobbing it off on teachers.

In 1776 . . . something happened . . . If you’re real Americans, you’ll know what it was when you’re old enough . . .

(Probably a very bad paraphrase of Paula Poundstone, discussing what it would be like if we taught all subjects the way we teach sex ed.)

Wow, just wow. God bless Texas 'cause no one else will want to if they keep acting like morons.

So we can prevent STDs by “sleeping together”? :cool:

Not to bash Texas, but can I say that I’m really upset about the stranglehold they have on textbook publishing? I don’t want some Podunk School Board deciding what my son can or can’t learn in another state.

What always frosts my shorts is that the parents who insist on the “abstinence is the only option” stance are the same parents who will not give their kids straight answers at home!

I don’t know, is there some rule that says teachers can’t go outside the textbook? I don’t remember even having a textbook for sex ed.

Well, duh. After all, sex is bad unless you’re married to somebody of the opposite sex. DON’T DO IT! :rolleyes: (Sex can be very bad idea for teenagers, but not always. Individual circumstances differ, and frankly, the more information I had about it the more reluctant I was to do it even if I’d had the chance. What information I had did not come from school, really.)

I had sex ed in Texas in the late 80s. Itwas pretty much "This is why you get a period and…um…if you must Do It, better use protection. I don’t think things have changed there all that much.

…and it’s them that you’re fucking.

I just found this article, which is on a similar note. Condom Necklace Sparks Outrage at Fair

I never understood why teenagers want to fuck like crazed weasels so much anyway. I did it once when I was 15, didn’t think much of it, and now I’m 17 and have no desire to have sex whatsoever. If the chance came up, I’d make some excuse to get out of it. I have to wonder why everywhere in society tells us that sex is the best thing since sliced bread, and then we can’t imagine why teenage girls keep getting pregnant.

Just my little rant.

When you’re old enough, you’ll understand.


The reasons why:

  1. It feels good
  2. It’s forbidden
  3. It feels good
  4. They have to learn somehow
  5. It feels good
  6. Everybody else is doing it
  7. It still feels good
  8. It’s a badge of maturity
  9. Ibid

Hell, I’m close to 50 and still enjoy my crazed weasel moments! :smiley:

Well…um…yeah, though I thought that was pretty obvious.


This is the 9th grade state guideline- it does rely heavily on abstinance.

The current 4 books in use are:
Health: A Guide to Wellness Texas Edition 4E Merki Glencoe
(view book infoe here http://www.glencoe.com/sec/catalog/index_search.html: )

Health: Skills for Wellness 1E Pruitt Prentice Hall
(very little info available here: http://phcatalog.pearson.com/program_single.cfm?site_id=6&discipline_id=814&subarea_id=1340&program_id=5046)

Making Life Choices: Health Skills and Concepts 1E Sizer

Health: Perspectives on Health 5 Getchell

I had trouble identifying the other two books because I’m not sure of the publisher. I’ll try later to look it up (I think the info is in the first link) when I’m not so busy.

Texas, like California, is a model for textbook purchasing for other smaller states. It’s easier and cheaper for smaller, poorer states to adopt our textbook recommendations than it is for them to do the reviews themselves. This makes both Texas and California battlegrounds for issues such as evolution and sex ed, and makes it more important for us to make good choices since others follow our lead.

We did pretty well last fall when evolution was the hot button topic (which means we were able to avoid the fundamentalist influence to either omit certain topics or “include alternative theories to evolution” or “correct errors in evolution theory”, or like Georgia actually put stickers in the textbooks, etc.).

It’s important to note that many of the people who object to our textbook content are not actually Texans. They may be people from states who adopt our books or people with personal agendas from all over the US, and they come to speak to our board on textbook adoption. Last year, during out science book review, there were folks from “The Discovery Institute”, a pro-creation-science organization based in Washington State who caused quite a rukus here. As far as I know, Washington State likely adopts California’s textbooks, so why they came here to dabble with Texas science books is mysterious to me.

That’s a good point. And sex ed is the sort of topic where a wealth of other learning material is out there. A teacher in a district with a more liberal policy on sex ed shouldn’t have any trouble teaching, no matter what the textbook says.

My falorite quote from Zabali’s link -

“It’s not a bar, it’s not a truck stop, it’s not a bowling alley,” said Wilkinson. “The fair is like the biggest kids’ thing around. It’s just not appropriate here,” she said.

Riiighhtt. Because of course that’s where you’re supposed to learn about sex. I think that pretty much says it all :rolleyes: .

Errr…I’m going to have to take exception to the suggestion that society has to sell teenagers on sex. Teenagers are *supposed * to want to fuck like crazed weasels. It even goes beyond danceswithcat’s list, hell, it’s the biological imperative. We’re built that way. The only reason teenagers are having more premarital sex now is…they’re not getting married.

(None of which do I say to slight you and your choices or feeling, I’m talking in general. Individually, everybody’s sex drive is different. Chacun a son gout :slight_smile: )

I just found two things rather ironic. First, this little factoid from the link:

Oh yeah, I can see abstinence-only is working real well! :rolleyes:

Second, when I clicked on the link there was a banner ad showing a smiling attractive, young woman with the caption “Anytime. Anywhere. Anyhow.” It was for an on-line university, but am I the only one who picked up a subtext of sexual readiness?

In American culture, sex is portrayed as a good, desirable thing, which every normal person wants to have and doesn’t get enough of. When I was growing up, calling someone a virgin was an insult, as it is today. The implication, I think, was that the person, man or woman, was too ugly and undesirable to have sex with if they were one. It seemed to be as insulting as “slut” was for women.

I’ve got one thing to say to the people who are trying to impose this sort of madness on people. I’ll tell you what, folks. As it happens, I’ve actually done a pretty good job of living by your sexual code. Nevertheless, I’ll agree to do so when you start doing so yourselves. You don’t want your kids to have sex before marriage? You teach them that. Me, I don’t have kids – I don’t believe in having kids outside of marriage, therefore I haven’t* – but if I did, I’d teach them what I believe, why, and that they are responsible for their own actions. I might even use a phrase my father used with me when I was bent on doing something he didn’t approve of: “If anything goes wrong, it’s your own stupid fault.” (OK, I’d drop the “stupid”.) I also suggest you not let me catch your kid calling mine a “slut” or a “virgin”, but then again, given my response to bullies, any kind of name-calling isn’t a real good idea. I see no reason why people who are too irresponsible to teach their own kids should try to teach mine.

*I also realize I’ve been lucky and I do keep that standard to myself. No disrespect was intended to those who do have kids outside of marriage.