quote:

Originally posted by priveye03 Also, what if the parents are say, devote Christians for example, and believe only in Abstinance and Abstinance alone? Where are the kids suppose to learn about methods such as condoms etc... And don't make the arguement that the kids will also be devote christians and not have sex anyways, because we all know that would not be even skimming the truth.

So you think that the government should be able to willfully supercede the powers of the parent's and teach their kids about sexual behavior? They may not be making the best parenting decisions in your eyes, but does that mean you should give the government power to come into your house and raise your kids for you? Do you realize the implications of this? Have you read A Brave New World? My argument isn't concerned about what parent's choose to teach their kids, it's more that it's the parents' duty and right to raise their kids how they see fit. It's simply not a place where I want the government meddling.

Think about it like this: You have an uncle who likes to have fun with you, whom you view as a role model. This uncle, however, has a more lax mindset than your parents. He doesn't mind so much when you get in trouble. Your parents, on the other hand, try to teach you a stricter set of morals and a better code of values. You do something wrong and you tell your parents that your uncle said it was OK, but they don't feel the same way. Now imagine that the uncle is the government--giving you a bit more leeway to fuck up, while your parents are trying to teach you otherwise. It would be much better for the government to err to the side of saftey and not play the role of the uncle who gives ill advice. Then if the parents supercede that and give their children a bit more education and understanding of things, there won't be a contradiction in beliefs. Maybe that wasn't the most well written example, but hopefully you get my point--it is better for the government not to step too far into people's private lives by just taking the stand that abstinence for our youth is their policy while leaving the real teaching of such personal matters to the parents. Again, when people don't want to take responsibility, this is the kind of result they get.

quote:

I think the government should play some role, especially with Sex Education in the school. I still remember my sex education when I was in 5th grade, and it has stuck with me ever since.

I remember sex-ed in 4th grade. I thought it was a joke--though I still distinctly remember it. Someone asked the teacher what a blow job was, everyone laughed because we already knew, it was just funny to put the guy on the spot. He was much more interested in teaching us about how the pituitary gland works. I think I was taught about the pituitary gland for 8 years straight--I think some money was probably wasted in there teaching the same material year after year.


Think about it. If you have a sexual question/issue, who would you prefer to turn to for advice--your government or your parents? Seems to me that the government is trying to take the safest, least controversial stand on this issue and leave the ultimate decision to the parents. I don't understand why you are so up in arms!

I guess I worded it wrong or you misunderstood my meaning. I didn't say the government had any right to over-right the parents. I said/meant that without programs such as sex-education, the kids just aren't going to learn about contraception at all and will be put at an incredabily higher risk of pregnancy/STD/HIV because of their lack of knowledge in that area. I'm not in any way implying that the FBI bust into your house with condoms as earrings yelling that if your kids don't learn about contraception, they are going to go all 1984 on your ass.

And I guess that is the difference between my sex ed and yours. We had all the contraceptive methods (at the time) shown to us and did the normal sex ed stuff. No one really cracked many jokes, even though a few were made because we were 11

I hear your point--and I don't think there's anything wrong with making sure our kids are as educated as they possibly can be.

I just interpret government involvement the way we're talking about it to be the equivalent of handing more of your rights/freedoms over to the government. It's dangerous because once you've essentially handed your rights back on a silver platter it's hard to get them back and you might not like what the government decides to do with them down the road. Yeah, I'm obviously a proponent of smaller government--I want to protect my rights!

I can sort of see both sides of the issue here.

On the one hand, comprehensive government-funded programs would be exposing younger teenagers to sex, perhaps before they're ready to handle it or its potential consequences. It's not really great to be giving them the impression that it's perfectly fine to have sex at 13 or 14 as long as they wear protection. Even just in a purely emotional sense, a lot of people who "start" that early are a little fucked up when they get older.

On the other hand, it's already been brought up that these kids are going to be exposed to sex anyway, mainly through TV, games, books, media, etc. I find this sad and unfortunate, but it's true, and sexual awareness is only one step away from sexual activity. Morals or no morals, if the opportunity comes up, their instincts are going to get the better of them if they already know "what to do" from TV and such.

If Bush really wants to cut down on teen pregnancies and all that, he should be targeting the real problems: educate the parents on how to raise their kids properly, and possibly put the money into things like parental control technologies so little kids aren't exposed to that at such a young age.

An "abstinence-only" program doesn't really make sense in the context of present American society - 50 years ago it might have been fine, but today it's just pointless.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade Actually, it's rather well known that Bush is a Christian, and in fact, feels uncomfortable in company that doesn't have faith. It is a widely known fact that the president prays before each speech and uses comments such as “It was God’s plan” when he referred to his mission to make the world safe for democracy, and “You believe in the Almighty, and I believe in the Almighty. That’s while we’ll be great partners” (click here for that article) Gregg Easterbrook, an extensive writer about the modern search for meaning, suspects that “Bush takes the view (which may prove right) that the ultimate argument will be between people who believe in something larger than themselves, and people who believe that it’s all an accident of chemistry" (quote from the same article). But, on to the actual argument here... (I love how I get sidetracked here) I'm sorry, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only become more popular within the last few decades that people under 18 were having sex. It was not always. With pop stars and movies that are being shown now a days, there's no hope for a child to get to age 12 without knowing what a blow job is, for example. If the "youth" is going to know about sex one way or another, at least educate them on the dangers and hazards of having it, and the correct ways to protect themselves. Whether it be from school or from parents, they need to understand the potential health hazards they create for themselves when acting like an adult while still a child from somewhere. It's also the influence of schools, peers, television, movies, the internet... I agree that parents need to take more responsibility, but I know for a fact I learned all the bad things at school. I learned about the real information about sex from peers at the high school I went to. (I'm amazed at what children know these days.... I didn't know half the stuff they know now at almost twice the age they are at!) It's not necessarily just the parents fault. My family was very involved, very loving. Along with many other families around this area. But, you learn the "stuff" about life at school. You can't always blame the parents when a lot of the problems come from our schools. I agree that parents should be the ones teaching their children about abstinence and safe sex, however. I repeat. A lot of parent's do teach their children about sex. Unfortunately, it's the outside influences (aka the internet, tv, peers, etc) that give the youth a more provacative, sex appeal side to the whole issue. I think it's ridiculous that some of the ads on billboards on a regular highway!!!!! promote strip clubs/prostitution! I mean, come on, this is getting ridiculous. As daffodil said, teaching the youth abstinence is good. Teaching only abstinence is bad. I was educated quite well on sex, the hazards, abstinence, etc etc etc, and it made me wait longer to have it, for fear of pregnancy, HIV, STDs, etc. Giving the youth a good education on the risks of engaging in sexual activities at such a young age, at any age, with one or multiple partners, is direly needed. If it has to come from school, let it. They need to know somehow.

I agree. These abstinence-only programmes will work just as well--maybe worse than,--the D.A.R.E. programmes that used to go on (and still do?) in the US regarding the use of drugs and marihuana: Ultimatelly, if someone wants to do it, they'll probably end up doing it anyway so, why not go with the 'even though I don't reccomend that everyone do this particular activity [yet, because of either your young age, lack of knowledge, or otherwise], if you are doing to do it, follow these guidelines for your own safety and knowledge:[...]'?

Furthermore, if you constantly tell or show someone to 'just don't do it' all the time, it will make them want to do it more. Similarly, if someone initially wonders why a particular thing is done a certain way and they ask many people and end up only getting answers like 'Why wonder about it? You're only wasting your time.', 'That's just the way it is. Just do it that way because everyone else does it like that.', or 'Because that's the way we've always done it.'; the natural reaction will be further wonder/questioning and finally, deliberate change.

So, why not say 'Even though abstinence can 100% protect you from an STD or unwanted pregnancy, if you wish to have sex, contraception can come very close nowadays to 100% protection and saves many people's lives every single day. Think about how many people use contraception and are saved daily & how many people could've been saved from unwanted pregnancy or an STD if either contraception was available or if they used it on a global scale...'?

Last edited by ali92 on Jan-23-2004 at 04:56

I can see and understand the point that is being made that with sex education you are basically telling the kids to go ahead and have sex. And I also see the point that at a young age, if a child has sex it can damage them and give them baggage that lasts for a long time, if not there whole life, which I agree with. But I am going to have to disagree with the first point that it is encouraging children to have sex. I can only speak from first hand experience, and it was thoroughly expressed in my sexual education to wait and of course abstinance was stressed. If the sexual education is done right, then it is very effective in still steering the childrem clear of sex. But the basic point is, they are going to do it if they want to or not. We need to provide them with the education and knowledge on what to do and what not to do.

I do like the idea on educating the parents though. My parents played a big role in my sexual education, even though the school was the main factor, and also society.

quote:

I do like the idea on educating the parents though. My parents played a big role in my sexual education, even though the school was the main factor, and also society.

I feel that parenting is the real issue in this debate. I will conceed that today kids are exposed to more graphic violence and sex than at any other time in our history. However, I think the level of parenting in this country is at the lowest at any time in our history.

Kids are not born any more inherently "evil" or prone to "sin" then kids born fifty or one hundred years ago, so then why do they seem so? First, I think we fail to look objectively at kids today with respect to the kids of the past. Although the temptations were different, I believe adolescents of the past probably got into just as much "trouble" as children of today, but maybe in slightly different ways. Also, whereas in the past a child was considered an adult and maybe even married with kids at 15 or 16, today kids are expected to wait much longer to reach that point, even though they are sexually mature at an earlier age. Secondly (and here come some sweeping generalizations), children today live in more single-parent homes and non-tradiational households. Although this does not always lead to a corrupt child, it certainly does not help to prevent it. There is something to be said about a strong nuclear family raising a child, and this is what I see as the biggest difference between children of today and those of the past. Kids of today simply have a weaker parenting base during their upbringing. Children are raised in an atmosphere where careers often come first, and divorce is many times a first option instead of a last resort. Parenting seems to be a title bestowed at conception, not a role that includes teaching and discipline throughtout a child's lifetime.

Children have learned the do's and don'ts of sex through their family for the entirety of human civilization. Although sex ed in schools may be a good way to augment what a child learns from their parents, it should not totally replace them, and I think that in many cases that is what is happening. Parents are either too busy, embarassed or indifferent to teach about the birds and the bees, and that is what somehow needs to change the most. Not what Mr. Smith is teaching his 6th grade class.

Last edited by NeoPhono on Jan-23-2004 at 12:29

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono There is something to be said about a strong nuclear family raising a child, and this is what I see as the biggest difference between children of today and those of the past. Kids of today simply have a weaker parenting base during their upbringing. Children are raised in an atmosphere where careers often come first, and divorce is many times a first option instead of a last resort. Parenting seems to be a title bestowed at conception, not a role that includes teaching and discipline throughtout a child's lifetime.

I agree with you about the value of a nuclear family, though I oppose the idea of relegating women to the inferior status of baby-making dishwashers. There must be a balance.

quote:

Although sex ed in schools may be a good way to augment what a child learns from their parents, it should not totally replace them, and I think that in many cases that is what is happening. Parents are either too busy, embarassed or indifferent to teach about the birds and the bees, and that is what somehow needs to change the most. Not what Mr. Smith is teaching his 6th grade class.

I would agree with you here except for the fact that many of these abstinence only sexual "education" classes intentionally lie to young people about contraceptive use. That's going way beyond the limits of rationality or morality.

The fact is many of these "abstinence only" education courses are used to advocate a specific religion (Christianity) over other religions, which in my opinion violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Rural Southern areas seem to be notorious for this practice:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."



What really makes me mad is that my tax money goes to programs that spread lies and misinformation that further puts our young people at risk of AIDS, STDs, and unintended pregnancy, all while violating the First Amendment at the same time. I mean, if you're going to do all that, you might as well cut funding for "sex ed" programs altogether. It would do less harm to the country.

I don't know how anyone can defend these policies in their current state in the face of the facts.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Just to make it clear, I'm not for an abstinence-only program being taught in schools. Children, as well as adults, should be given the complete truth concerning every situation and then be able to make their own educated choices (with educated being the key in that sentence).

I can see how it would be very difficult for many to justify the government funding teaching for anything other than abstinence however. Can you imagine how people would react if schools started teaching the truth about drugs such as marijuana? You'd have people outraged that our schools were condoning their use, just because they were teaching the truth and not propaganda aimed at scaring kids away from its use. The same could be said about sex ed. If we taught children that if they practice safe sex, there is a very good probabilty they won't get pregnant or pick up diseases, many would assume we are in fact supporting sex for children. I think the government is in a bad situation in this matter, if they do teach the whole truth about sex, many will consider them to be "pro-sex," while if they teach abstinence only, many will consider them to be hiding the truth.

Also, my comment about nuclear families had nothing to do with gender roles as far as stay at home moms. I believe that a child needs support from both a mother and a father on a constant basis, and that the well-being of a child should outweigh the need to succeed at any cost at a career.

Its simple. Teach them all the safe sex techniques that are not 100% safe, and that the only Safe way to go is ABSTINANCE until your time comes.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

This proves what I had suspected, that Bush and the authoritarian social policies of the far-right are well on the extreme fringes of American society:


http://www.npr.org/display_pages/fe...re_1624281.html

NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll:

~15% of people agree with abstinence only sex ed

~50& of people agree with teaching abstinence is best, but also in emphasizing contraceptives use

~33% of people agree that it's most important to teach kids sex ed with emphasis on contraceptives and reducing risk associated with sexual activity

~90% agree that sex ed should be taught in school

~90 % of schools teach sex ed


Sex Ed in Maine, an excellent model for the Nation:

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/fe...re_1624508.html

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

oh that bush likely did a ton of caaaaaaaaaaaaaackin in his day, everything in but the nutzzzzzzzz

___________________
Fear & Loathing @ Electric Daisy Las Vegas 2012/Miami Music Week 2012