David Weigel | September 1, 2006
Kerry Howley tries to understand the battle over sex ed, and the motivations of do-gooders who want to keep facts and prophylactics far, far away from those pesky teenagers.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Let's see...
- The state that's next in line to introduce intelligent design
into the school science curriculum is also teaching abstinence only
in sex ed.
- Voting irregularities in OH helped Bush win in '04.
Ahhh, I've got it. This is a red state. Teach ALL the
controversies!
and the motivations of do-gooders who want to keep facts and
profylactics far, far away from those pesky teenagers.
I would think that the idea that it is the states resposibility to
teach sexuality to children would be asthima to libertarian
orthidoxy...apperantly a particular version of sexual morality has
put a twinkle in the proverbial libertarian's eye
A 13% pragnacy rate means that 87% of the girls are not
pregnant. Can the teachers of the other curricula boast of a
success rate as high? Do 87% of the student know multiplication
through twelves? Do 87% of the high school students read at or
above their grade level?
A school doesn't need a Health Care Professional to teach Sex Ed,
just a good Spin Doctor.
David Weigel:
But why, if it is likely a waste of time, entertain the
controversy at all?
So that they can mollify folks by saying that they're "doing
something".
My fiendish plot to purposely misspell words and induce a stroke in Ayn_Randian is proceeding as planned.
A lot of people with a lot of different opinions all seem to
agree that if teenagers sit through a lesson their behavior will
change. Some might say it will change for the better, some might
say it will change for the worse, but all agree that if teenagers
sit through a lesson their behavior will change.
Um, yeah, whatever.
And apparently the professor quoted in the article agrees with
me.
What's really unbelievable is the amount of money they spend on
"abstinence education". I mean, there's really not much to teach
there... "Don't have sex. That way you won't get pregnant or an
STD." Anything more is a waste of time.
I mean, if schools want to remove real sex ed, fine. They're
probably not getting any facts through anyway if it's anything like
everything else in our schools.
But dumping more money in our schools with the excuse that you
prevent kids from having sex by bringing someone in to burn bits of
flash paper (like the educator in the Bullshit episode) ...
aargh.
I think the most effective abstinence based sex education was WWII-era VD films. Watch some of those and you will keep your pants zipped for quite some time. I've spoken to some vets that are still traumatized 60 years later.
Shannon,
I remember the anti drunk driving films that they showed us in high
school making quite a horrific impression. Hmm, maybe that's why
I?ve been drunk a whole 3 or 4 time in my life...Na, I'm just too
hep.
One of the films featured a poor intoxicated fellow who lost
control and sped thru a field of tree stumps. Somehow the door
opened and he fell half way out till the open door hit one of the
stumps and severed him in two. Charming, huh?
Rick Barton
Obviously, we must ban tree stumps.
[Ron Bailey's GM trees would come in handy here.)
"I think the most effective abstinence based sex education was
WWII-era VD films."
Shannon Love,
I was of the Vietnam era, but I can report that, after seeing the
sucking chest wound films, I have not sucked a single chest.
Adolescent sex, apparently, indicates a policy
failure,...
Kerry's bias is showing.
Sex didn't indicate a policy failure...pregnancy did. It was a
policy failure because the policy (ostensibly) was supposed to
prevent teen pregnancy.
...Luker can't find a single study robust enough to
back.
Just because Luker can't find 'em doesn't mean they're not there.
There are plenty of studies and they repeatedly show that:
1. Abstinence only progams are an almost universal failure.
2. Comprehensive programs that include conraception tend to result
in lower rates of teen pregnancy. Some also indicate lower rates of
STD rates as well.
I would think that the idea that it is the states
resposibility to teach sexuality to children would be asthima to
libertarian orthidoxy...apperantly a particular version of sexual
morality has put a twinkle in the proverbial libertarian's
eye
Why stop there? Why don't parents just teach kids their own history
and science too? If you want to teach your kids that the world was
created in 6 days and that George Washington didn't have slaves
that's your right.
Obviously teaching kids about sex is the responsibility of the parents. I guess people just got tired of the parents, both left and right, neglecting this responsibility. I would even suggest, without any clue whatsoever, that parents are probably relieved that they don't have to talk labia with their kids.
conservatives could stand before the sons and daughters of
liberal intellectuals and preach the wonders of waiting.
I wonder if anyone thinks after their first time "Boy, am I glad I
waited for that!" rather than "six thrusts. WTF"?
The deeper you delve into controversies over the sexual
education of public school kids, the easier it is to forget kids
were ever involved.
You could swap out "sexual education of public school kids" for
almost any political "hot button" topic and this sentence wil still
be true.
Sexual coupling is a powerful enough urge that a hag like Andrea Dworkin, according to her writings, was able to sell her services (presumably to willing buyers). How realistic is it to suppose that just saying, "Don't do it," will have any effect at all?
Geez, we had sex ed in Catholic school, even if they split it up
between Religion and Health class. We learned that:
1.) Sex with somebody else before marriage was a sin.
2.) Sex with somebody other than your spouse, once you were
married, was a sin. If you even desired to have sex with anybody
you weren't married to without marrying them, that was a sin,
too.
3.) Sex by yourself, anytime, was a sin.
4.) KSU/GKUBS (knocking someone up, or getting knocked up by
someone) was a sin, unless that someone was your spouse.
5.) Having sex while trying to prevent KSU/GKUBS was a sin, even
with a spouse. Of course, catching or spreading an STD by NOT using
prevention was a sin, too.
6.) Sex is a gift from God to husbands and wives that allows them
to share their love, but it's all empty and icky if there's no
possibility of KSU/GKUBS. So no M/M or F/F. Vasectomies and tubal
ligations are the devil's tools, too.
7.) Anybody who never gets married never gets to have any sex of
any kind, ever, ever, ever.
8.) If, after getting knocked up, someone tries to 86 the results,
that's killing precious human life, you murderer!
9.) No knocking up if the "precious human life" comes from a petri
dish. Whad'ya think is gonna happen to the "spares", you
murderer!
I now believe all (or most) of the above is total crap, but it was
my parents' right to have it forced into my ears, and more parents
ought to be able to exercise that right. Quibbling about what the
publik skools use as sex ed curriculum is so far down the list of
libertarian concerns that one can't even see it while standing
where school choice/school privatization is on the totem
pole.
Kevin
induce a stroke in Ayn_Randian
Take comfort in the knowledge that in another thread the strokee in
question misused 'reign' for 'rein'. So nobody's prefect.
I attended Philadelphia Catholic schools. Kevin ( kerbob) is not
exaggerating. I testify that I too was taught the same. And, it was
my parents' complete right to send me to a school that filled my
head with this.
I hold that government schools are an abomination. While a student
may possibly opt out of these sex-ed classes, he can not opt out
from the association with all the other students who have attended.
( Violation of the First Amendment Right to free
association.)
There is NO possible way that any government school can teach sex
education in a religiously neutral manner. Learning about human
sexuality has profound religious consequences. No matter how the
government school approaches the topic it will be establishing the
religious worldview of some, while undermining that of others. (
Violation of the First Amendment right of government establishment
of religion)
Finally, sex education is merely one of hundreds of issues that can
not be resolved by the government school in a neutral manner.
Solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12
education. Let parents, teachers, and parents decide upon sex
education, and hundreds of other issues, privately in private
schools.
I attended Philadelphia Catholic schools. Kevin ( kerbob) is not
exaggerating. I testify that I too was taught the same. And, it was
my parents' complete right to send me to a school that filled my
head with this.
I hold that government schools are an abomination. While a student
may possibly opt out of these sex-ed classes, he can not opt out
from the association with all the other students who have attended.
( Violation of the First Amendment Right to free
association.)
There is NO possible way that any government school can teach sex
education in a religiously neutral manner. Learning about human
sexuality has profound religious consequences. No matter how the
government school approaches the topic it will be establishing the
religious worldview of some, while undermining that of others. (
Violation of the First Amendment right of government establishment
of religion)
Finally, sex education is merely one of hundreds of issues that can
not be resolved by the government school in a neutral manner.
Solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12
education. Let parents, teachers, and parents decide upon sex
education, and hundreds of other issues, privately in private
schools.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245