Republicans vs. Sex Ed, round XXX

[Arrian]

That and the fact that condoms are not in fact, foolproof. They do fail sometimes (both in their role as contraceptive and as protection from disease).

The thing is, of course, that it's simple logic to point out that abstinence offers the best defense vs. STDs and unwanted pregnancy, but to teach that and yet leave out the parts about condoms, etc., is just ****ing stupid.

But hey, religionistas are what they are.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Cars are not foolproof from accidents. We need to teach people that the only option is to walk; because everything else we ride or drive are not foolproof: bikes, buses, trucks . . . . .

teach people to walk everywhere, everyday!!!!!!

[Jon Miller]

I think Condoms should not be taught to 5th-6th graders because they shouldn't be having sex period. (they are kids, any time a kid has sex, rape is occuring)

Start introducing it to Junior high.. but focus more on abstinence.. Continue on in the start of highschool, focusing on at risk behaviors and responsible sex.

Jon Miller

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think Condoms should not be taught to 5th-6th graders because they shouldn't be having sex period. (they are kids, any time a kid has sex, rape is occuring)

Start introducing it to Junior high.. but focus more on abstinence.. Continue on in the start of highschool, focusing on at risk behaviors and responsible sex.

Jon Miller

Doesn't all this assume that sex education causes people to have sex?

[Arrian]

I think if you're going to talk about sex (beyond a simple "where do babies come from, mommy?"), you should do a full-blown (no pun, dirty bastards!) sex ed course. I admit I'm unsure of the exact age at which that is appropriate.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Good point. Avoiding talking about it, or just saying "don't do it" isn't going to stop it.

Furthermore, that's the parents' role. Moreover, I'm FINE with schools telling young kids that having sex before X age isn't okay (particularly if "X" is defined by law, which it probably is, isn't it?).

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

If you're having a political conference, then a balance in ideologies is great. If you're having a scientific conference, then ideology shouldn't come into the picture.

Ok. Now, are the scientists who are in favour of condoms somehow free of ideology? Why are condoms the 'scientific' choice, while abstinence, which has been proven to be effective at preventing STD transmission ignored.

If this conference isn't about ideology, then the so called impartial scientists who favour condoms should have no problems dealing with contrary scientific opinions wrt to the efficacy of condoms.

It wasn't the scientists who made this into an ideological debate, and they shouldn't have to pander to those who put more emphasis on ideology than on truth. A scientific conference on biology shouldn't accept technically incompetent Creationist panelists in the interest of ideological balance, and likewise a scientific conference on disease control shouldn't accept technically incompetent Abstinence Only panelists in the interest of ideological balance.

Well that's all very fine. How does one become 'technically competent' and does such competence mean that you must agree with the prevailing notions with respect to condoms?

Scientifically, the evidence does not support the prevailing notions, and in fact we are doing a great deal of harm to these kids by ignoring the facts. I would argue why should the abstinence folks put up with dinosaurs who are behind the times, who are pushing an ideology that has never shown to produce a decline in STD transmission anywhere.

[Jon Miller]

It doesn't naturally occur among 5th and 6th graders...

They don't have the hormones. Sex has entered their lives from abuse and other such things.. but the state should not be in the position of legitamizing rape.

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

I'd say that technical competance basically means that you use actual data, use it properly (proper sample size/data set/etc), and draw conclusions (or indeed pose more questions) from that.

That's clearly off the top of my head.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Cars are not foolproof from accidents. We need to teach people that the only option is to walk; because everything else we ride or drive are not foolproof: bikes, buses, trucks . . . . .

teach people to walk everywhere, everyday!!!!!!

Excellent analogy Mr. Fun. Do we teach 12 year olds to drive?

[Jon Miller]

Basically Sex Ed needs included from such an early age because of rampant child abuse... and the high sexual activity of ~14 yearolds..

Jon Miller
(really sexual activity among 14 yearolds should be low.. increasing to high in college)

(there is a time and a place for everything, and that is called college) - SP

[Kontiki]

We don't tell 12 year olds "never, ever drive until you're married".

[Arrian]

Actually, talking about sex with younger kids might just bring that abuse out into the open, where it can be dealt with by the proper authorities. Anyway, I've got no problem with reinforcing in schools that sex before age... what, 14? is wrong/illegal.

I dunno how we got off onto this tangent about 12 yr. olds having sex, though. I'm talking about sex ed in general and what to teach. I had sex ed in HIGHSCHOOL.

-Arrian

p.s. I thought I read/heard somewhere that the reasons for earlier & earlier puberty in kids is a combo of stress and bad diet. Anybody heard any more about that?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Basically Sex Ed needs included from such an early age because of rampant child abuse... and the high sexual activity of ~14 yearolds..

Jon Miller
(really sexual activity among 14 yearolds should be low.. increasing to high in college)

(there is a time and a place for everything, and that is called college) - SP

Again, are you actually saying that sex ed is what is causing minors to have sex?

[Jon Miller]

No, but I am saying that teaching condom use and the like (to kids) is legitamizing kids having sex.

Where kids are different than teenagers...

JM