Archive for Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Abstinence-based plan for sex education is returning

June 14, 2006


— Having joined a small number of states that require parental permission before allowing students to take sex education, the State Board of Education now is considering tightening restrictions on the subject even further.

The board today will decide whether to require every school district use "abstinence-until-marriage" sex education.

Several advocates for a more comprehensive approach to sex education asked the board to reject the proposal.

Lois Culver, a retired teacher from Lenexa, said "abstinence-until-marriage" programs were dangerous.

"They do not discuss all the lifesaving information young people need to make responsible decisions," she said.

James Hasselle, a retired psychologist from Lawrence, agreed, saying young people need as much factual information as they can get.

"A thoughtful, intelligent program of sex education benefits the youth and all of Kansas," Hasselle said.

A number of students and parents also urged the board to reject abstinence until marriage and require a comprehensive, age-appropriate human sexuality curriculum.

In March, the board on a 6-4 vote went against the advice of health care professionals by requiring that school districts receive parental permission for students to participate in sexual education classes. This so-called "opt-in" policy will mean some students will not benefit from the class simply because their parents are inattentive to school needs, the health care experts said.

Most states and school districts, including Lawrence, have an opt-out policy in which parents can sign a form if they want their children removed from sex education class. Despite the board's opt-in requirement, Lawrence school officials said they won't change their local policy.

The state board also briefly considered requiring "abstinence only" sex education. But that idea died.

This new proposal was seen by some members who had wanted "abstinence only" as a compromise.

The proposed policy would require that each district teach that abstinence until marriage is the best way to avoid pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. The policy would also include information on STDs, especially HIV and AIDS in addition to "factual information regarding contraception and disease prevention."

Board member John Bacon, a Republican from Olathe, said the proposal handles the issue "quite adequately."

"I'm not sure what the beef is," Bacon said.

But several advocates of sex education said the more information given young people, the better they will be able to make decisions on whether to engage in sexual activity.


geekin_topekan 11 years, 6 months ago

I know that for myself,in high school marriage was as inconceivable as a trip to the moon.But I did know that I had an overwhelming urge to put this....somewhere. For God's sake people,wake up!That is the most irresponsible,faith-based,bury-your-head-in-the-sand,stupid proposal Ive ever heard. The first arguement I'll hear is "It's the parent's responsibility". Yeah?In all honesty,did yours arm you everything you really needed to know?There is a lot of disfunction in the world and today's media(Bratz,hip-hop)encourages promiscuity.(sp?)That's the reality that should be dealt with.Not the save myself for marriage fairy-tale.

quigley 11 years, 6 months ago

Does this mean that kids today wont get the chance to watch their 80 year old school nurse put a condom on a banana? Man, that would be a shame.

rtwngr 11 years, 6 months ago

The cold hard fact is abstinence is the BEST way to avoid pregnancy and std's. It is not popular because there is not the tacit "we know your going to do it anyway" attitude that goes with it.

Statistics show that teen prengnancies and std's have not declined with the current "let me show you how to do it safely" mentality. If the present educational means are not working then it is time to change.


Richard Heckler 11 years, 6 months ago

Four of the five seats up for election are currently controlled by conservatives. In three of those, the incumbents are running for re-election, including John Bacon, of Olathe; Connie Morris, of St. Francis; and Ken Willard, of Hutchinson.

Bacon faces Republicans Harry McDonald and David Oliphant and Democrat Don Weiss for the District 3 seat. Morris is challenged by Republican Sally Cauble and Democrat Tim Cruz for the District 5 seat. Willard is up against Republicans Donna Viola and M.T. Liggett and Democrat Jack Wempe in District 7. In District 9, where conservative Republican Iris Van Meter, of Thayer, isn't seeking re-election, the candidates are Democrat Charles Kent Runyan and Republicans Brad Patzer and Jana Shaver.

For the District 1 seat, Democratic incumbent Janet Waugh, of Kansas City, Kan., is being challenged by a fellow Democrat, Jesse L. Hall.

VOTE OUT John Bacon

Richard Heckler 11 years, 6 months ago

Meet the KFUPE-Endorsed Candidates Picnic Location: Shawnee Mission Park, Shelter #2 Date:Sunday, July 09, 2006 - Sunday, July 09, 2006 Time:4:00:00 PM - 7:00:00 PM RSVP/Questions?

Join us for a picnic to meet, and celebrate, the KFUPE-endorsed candidates for the August 1st Primary Elections! There are many CRITICAL RACES in both the Primary Elections.

We are also trying to have Governor Sebelius and Lieutenant Governor candidate ???? ????????? join us, as well as Attorney General candidate Paul Morrison. More information to follow!

Hot dogs, pop, and snacks will be available.

For more information contact Kathy Cook at: (913) 825-0099.

Richard Heckler 11 years, 6 months ago

Abstinence is a major part of the Pro Active Planned Parenthood discussion. Education is the only Pro-Active means of reducing abortion and the abortion numbers have decreased. Pro-Active Sex Education needs to cover the entire spectrum.

If parents wish to withdraw their children from a Pro-Active program it is their perogative.

BrianR 11 years, 6 months ago

Is there some part of DOESN'T WORK that is being missed by these people? Maybe there is some other interpretation of 'doesn't work' that I've missed. Anyone...

gr 11 years, 6 months ago

"But several advocates of sex education said the more information given young people, the better they will be able to make decisions on whether to engage in sexual activity."

And, I think they should teach kids the proper way to hold a bong. They are going to do it anyway, especially if they go to the Wakarusa Fest. And we sure don't want them to be made fun of by their peers if they are unsure of themselves. Nor do we want them to endanger themselves with burns. The more information we can give these young people. who are going to use bongs anyway, the better they will be able to make the appropriate decisions.


geekin: "That is the most irresponsible,faith-based,bury-your-head-in-the-sand,stupid proposal Ive ever heard."

Over on the 'Saving Marriage' thread, some are criticizing why marriage doesn't work and why there is no effort being made to save it. Interesting how similar critics are critical when efforts are attempted.

whatisjazz 11 years, 6 months ago

rtwgr said: "Statistics show that teen prengnancies and std's have not declined with the current "let me show you how to do it safely" mentality."

Teen pregnancies in Kansas have DECREASED 23% between 1995 and 2004 ( with the current sensible approach to sex eduacation.

The cold hard fact is that not driving a car is the best way to avoid car accidents. But people are going to drive cars because it is a vital element of our livelihoods and economy. So we teach people how to drive safely.

It is aslo true that not having sex best way to avoid pregnancy and stds. But people are going to have sex because it is a vital element of our genetic makeup. So lets teach people how to have sex safely.

Jayhawk226 11 years, 6 months ago

The State Board of Education, led by 6-ultra conservative and fundamental members, first introduced this idea...

...with the intent that any/all school districts that do not adhere and teach the "abstinence-before-marriage" currriculum, will not receive public funding from the State level.

The board had to come together and at least reasonably negotiate with the other 4 members of the board and realize what they were doing was borderline illegal.

The assertions made that this is religiously-driven, is extremely accurate. It's a part of the conservative board members' agenda. Please do not be so ignorant in thinking otherwise. Please research your facts further.

The No Child Left Behind Act requires all schools and curriculum taught in our general education classrooms to be research-based, data-collected curriculums.

While the research highly points to abstinence as a strong contributing factor for the decrease in STDs, possibly abortions and pregnancies...I sure hope to goodness this "abstinence-before-marriage" has an actual curriculum, that can be supported with evidence for showing positive results.

Otherwise, as a state, we do run the risk of every fundamentalist in the state choosing to teach "abstinence" in any fashion they the name of their respective God.

usaschools 11 years, 6 months ago

The argument that rtwngr makes is poor and unsubstantiated. The current types of programs not only cut teen pregnancies, as whatisjazz pointed out, but also reduce STD's (the full extent of which can never be measured). However, there truly is NO evidence that abstinence-only programs reduce teen pregnancy and the transmission of STD's. The theory might make sense, but the reality is much different.

The chance of all young people choosing to abstain, no matter what measures were put in place to educate or coerce them to do so, is less than the chance of western Kansas becoming a tropical rainforest next year. It will never happen.

With drugs, we can say, "Just say no," because we don't want our children to ever do drugs. The difference with sex-education is that we DO want our children to practice safe sex and have sex at some point in their lives. Teaching children about their bodies, reproduction, and safe sex is not advocating teen sex.

By the way, this isn't the 1950's and that wasn't a golden era.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 6 months ago

And exactly how do you force abstinence on every teenager? How do you guarantee that just because you teach abstinence as the only way to keep from getting pregnant or keep from getting STDs, that all kids are going to automatically follow?

And by the way, marriage is no guarantee against getting STDs...many a spouse has been cheated on, didn't know it, and was made painfully aware of it when they found out they had an STD.

Geek has a good point. When I was in high school, adulthood and marriage and all that stuff seemed like it was still a whole lifetime away. When I was 14, I thought 25 was next-door to death.

Teenagers want what they want when they want it, and if they make their minds up about something, neither hell nor high water, nor the thought of angry parents, or pregnancy, or STDs, or the indignation of the state school board is going to stop them.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

"The first arguement I'll hear is "It's the parent's responsibility". Yeah?In all honesty,did yours arm you everything you really needed to know?"

At what point will society stop dumping the raising of our children onto the school system? Yes, G. Topekan makes a good point in that we American parents are far too busy trying to win the rat race, plan our next vacation and get to our lucky slot machine at the casino before the old-lady-tour-bus shows up to invest any quality time into actually raising our own children. Yes, as a culture, we are failing in our parenting, utterly. So the response is to dump another set of parenting duties on the schools? Our schools are failing because by the end of the day, there aren't any resources left over for the "3 Rs". Drug Awareness Rally at 9:00. Condom application lessons at 10:00. Single parenting training at 11:00. Do I think we "need" these things? Yes, of course, a need exists. But we are creating the social equivalent of a welfare state: we expect the government and our schools to be the HEART of our people. The government and the schools will ALWAYS FAIL at teaching your kids how to be good adults. I'm not saying that these programs are doomed to fail 100% (they will do a lot for some kids), I'm saying that they will never be a substitute for PARENTING. The more we rely on programs like this to teach our kids how to live their lives, the more lazy we will get as parents, and the less likely we will be to address the root causes of the dysfunction that G. Topekan referred to. So now, even families that are not completely dysfunctional will be expecting their kids to learn sex ed, family dynamics and personal ethics from instructors in their schools. We are the generation that invented the "VCR babysitter" when our kids were toddlers. Now that they are older, we expect the schools to continue the trend and to "engage" the hearts of our children because we are just too busy to do it ourselves.

We'll continue to be in trouble if we continue to expect more from our schools than we expect from our own parenting. I fear that we are perpetuating a cycle. Is sex ed "bad"? It is if it's enabling another generation of lazy-a$$ parents.

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

"An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association entitled "Protecting Adolescents From Harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health" shows that "abstinence pledge" programs are dramatically effective in reducing sexual activity among teenagers in grades 7 through 12. Based on a large national sample of adolescents, the study concludes that "Adolescents who reported having taken a pledge to remain a virgin were at significantly lower risk of early age of sexual debut."

"Operation Keepsake is an abstinence program for 12- and 13-year-old children in Cleveland, Ohio. Some 77 percent of the children in the program were black or Hispanic. An evaluation of the program in 2001, involving a sample of over 800 students, found that "Operation Keepsake had a clear and sustainable impact on...abstinence beliefs." The evaluation showed that the program reduced the rate of onset of sexual activity (loss of virginity) by roughly two-thirds relative to comparable students in control schools who did not participate in the program. In addition, the program reduced by about one-fifth the rate of current sexual activity among those with prior sexual experience."

"Not Me, Not Now is a community-wide abstinence intervention targeted to 9- to 14-year-olds in Monroe County, New York, which includes the city of Rochester. During the intervention period, the program achieved a statistically significant positive shift in attitudes among pre-teens and early teens in the county. The sexual activity rate of 15-year-olds across the county (as reported in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey21 ) dropped by a statistically significant amount from 46.6 percent to 31.6 percent during the intervention period. Finally, the pregnancy rate for girls aged 15 through 17 in Monroe County fell by a statistically significant amount, from 63.4 pregnancies per 1,000 girls to 49.5 pregnancies per 1,000. The teen pregnancy rate fell more rapidly in Monroe County than in comparison counties and in upstate New York in general, and the difference in the rate of decrease was statistically significant."

I could give more examples of how effective abstinence ed is but you can read the rest of the article here

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

Posted by crazyks:

"And exactly how do you force abstinence on every teenager? How do you guarantee that just because you teach abstinence as the only way to keep from getting pregnant or keep from getting STDs, that all kids are going to automatically follow?"

crazyks, how do you force teenagers to use condoms? And besides, condoms, when used by teens have been shown to have up to a 22.5% failure rate.

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

I'm sorry, but Abstinence DIDN'T work in that situation? Do you know for a fact that the victims went through the abstinence education program? Because that is what we are talking about here. Don't insult the intelligence of the people who post here by using a smoke and mirrors argument.

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

awoc, you can laugh at the Heritage Foundation but can you argue with the studies they cited in their article?

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

"And as a side note, didn't we try this tactic with drugs? How'd that work out?"

Exactly. What are the experts saying now? "Parents: The Anti-Drug".

ANY plan that is not driven by parents and backed by parents will have a low effectiveness rate compared to the impact that ordinary parenting can achieve. Have sex ed. Have drug awareness. REQUIRE the parents to sit next to their kids in attendance.

Whatever your pet plan is, it will lack effectiveness without parents.

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

That is one of the BEST ideas I have heard, requiring the parents to sit next to the kids during sex ed.

daddax98 11 years, 6 months ago

I don't know if any of you guys have on-demand cable but if you do check out Penn and Teller Bulls#it! they did a show on this very subject. After watching I don't think anyone will be citing "facts" from the Heritage Foundation

bettie 11 years, 6 months ago


In the first place, I have no idea where you would get a figure stating a 22.5% failure rate for teens. If anything, though, you've successfully illustrated that teens especially need to be taught to use them correctly if we are to remedy such a failure rate.

Now on to your other examples. I don't dispute anything that you've stated, but I do question the relevance of your statements.

Virginity pledges may delay the "loss of virginity" for many students, but students who pledge are more likely to engage in oral or anal sex, less likely to use protection, and more likely to contract STD's than their non-pledging peers. (That is, according to studies in the American Journal of Sociology and the Journal of Adolescent Health.)

This is just one example of the ways in which Abstinence-Only Education programs fail America's youth while simultaneously claiming success.

I would encourage anyone who visits the link provided by assistant1234 to also visit It should be interesting to compare how the two organizations present the information.

BlondeTiger 11 years, 6 months ago

abstinence until marriage....not everyone believes in marriage.

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

Abstinence ed doesn't hide information from kids, it teaches about condoms and birth control. The difference is the emphasis is places on waiting until a committed adult relationship, usually marriage, to engage in sexual activity. If anything I'd say the other programs are "advocating for ignorance" - ignorance of the benefits of delaying sex.

Jayhawk226 11 years, 6 months ago


...I never even though of that perspective!!!

Since the State of Kansas overwhelmingly does not believe that marriage is intended for people of differing sexual orientations than their own, how can homosexuals ever engage in any sexual activity?!!?

I mean, the state statutes already deem it illegal to engage in sodomy...but then to start preaching no sexual activity until marriage, when gay men or women can't marry in this state at all...

...oh man!

This fundamentally-Christian dominated board sure knows how to stick-it-to-the-man! ( pun intended there!)

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

I love how because you don't advocate teaching children that it is good and almost risk free to engage in sexual activity as long as you have a small piece of latex between you and your partner, that you get labeled as "fundamental" and "Christian". As if thos e were the only people who supprt this curricula.

Those of you who visit the SEICUS site keep in mind that in their guidelines they want kindergarten children taught about masturbation. I feel comfortable surmising that most people find that repulsive.

Jayhawk226 11 years, 6 months ago

Abstinence education curriculums are nothing new.

It began, in its most modern form, back in 1996. Congress authorized $50 million through a new formula grant program created under Title V, Section 510 of the Social Security Act, authorized under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996.

Since the passage of PRWORA, the percentage of teens reporting that they have had sex has decreased, continuing a decline that started in 1991. At this time, however, no definitive research has linked the abstinence education legislation with these downward trends. Most people acknowledge that "abstinence works." It is certain to prevent unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), abortions, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. (This according to an contracted research study, mandated by Congress to determine the effectiveness of the program).

The law indicates, to receive federal funding, it must address the following curricular points: specifies that a program must:

  1. Have as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity

  2. Teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children

  3. Teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems

  4. Teach that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity

  5. Teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects

  6. Teach that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society

  7. Teach young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances

  8. Teach the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity

Not sure what "abstinence-before-marriage," research-based curriculum the State of Kansas is hoping to adopt for our schools...but hopefully it does address the aforementioned topics, which sound rather appropriate to me. Sounds religious-free to me.

(Sorry for the long post...did some copy-and-paste on this one)

auturgy 11 years, 6 months ago

Yes, abstinence is the best policy. But it's the least frequently used policy in yes, even our homegrown, wholesome Kansas. They're opening the door to some bad stuff. But it's ok. We'll continue taking one step forward, three backwards. Eventually there won't be any farther back to retreat.

bettie 11 years, 6 months ago

whoa, assistant1234, that's a blatant lie. or perhaps you're confusing "abstinence-only" or "abstinence-until-marriage" and "abstinence-based" or "abstinence-plus". what the school board is considering, an approach that emphasizes abstinence but also includes information about contraception, is "abstinence-based".

"abstinence-only" education is exactly what it sounds like - nothing but abstinence. in fact, in order to qualify for federal abstinence-only funding, these programs are only allowed to mention contraception if they are discussing failure rates. even then, they are encouraged to use "real-use" rates rather than laboratory rates - that is, to use statistics gathered from couples who use condoms incorrectly or inconsistently. abstinence-only programs are what you referenced with your heritage foundation examples - not abstinence-based programs.

furthermore, it's disengenuous to imply that any sexuality education program DOESN'T emphasize the benefits of abstinence. any program is going to do this, whether it's abstinence-only or abstinence-based. the difference, though, is that abstinence-based education will go on to teach kids about contraceptives as well.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

"abstinence until marriage....not everyone believes in marriage"

I once held my bladder all the way from Lawrence to Wichita. That seemed relevant to the discussion, somehow.

"You rightwingers are big on personal responsibility, yet want to dictate what people can and cannot know and discuss."

This is such a good point (although I'm not sure that the blanket jab at all right-wingers was warranted). As a Christian, I want the freedom to be Christian and to teach my kids my values and beliefs. The schools should give parents options so that they can still be parents. Requiring that the schools teach abstinence isn't a bad idea, but if the design is to exclude all other forms of teaching on the subject, I don't think that's the greater good.

I don't care if my kid learns how to use a condom! It may come in handy on their wedding night. "I used the aluminum wrapper on my thingy, and chewed the complementary gum inside. We won't get pregnant, and that gum lasted for days!"

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

I'm unsure as to what you are claiming I am lying about - if its about teaching kindergarteners about masterbation - look it up on seicus. As far as using the "real-use" stats instead of "lab use" stats - exactly HOW is this bad again? Do you have sex in a lab?

conservative 11 years, 6 months ago

Here is the bottom line as I see it.

Is abstinence the safest and surest way to avoid pregnancy and STD's? Yes.

Is it reasonable to believe that a majority of people will wait until marriage? No

Therefore we'd better do the best job educating them we can!

And yes parents should be teaching their children what they need to know, and I do, but I sure am glad the schools will be following up with additional information.

As far as the religion knockers, I went to a catholic grade school, and frankly the sex education there was more complete than what I've seen in many public schools. We were taught all the practical information including contraceptives, although they did separate us into classes of all boys and all girls.

Jayhawk226 11 years, 6 months ago

assistant1234--The SEICUS wishes for teaching about masturbation are to be incorporated with sex education, not absitinence etc.

I understood your point in an earlier post, but wasn't relevant to the discussion.

yourworstnightmare 11 years, 6 months ago

Abstinence does indeed work and is the best way to prevent STDs and pregnancy. However, abstinence education alone does not work. It is simply ignoring reality to base all sex education on "Just say no".

Abstinence should be a large part of sex education and should be stressed, but it is a disservice to present only abstinence education.

My understanding is that most current sex education already includes abstinence education. What is being proposed by the fundamentalist christians is to remove everything except abstinence education. This would be a mistake.

bettie 11 years, 6 months ago

I thought I was being clear in that detailed post, but apparently I was wrong. What i'm claiming is that you're blurring the lines between abstinence-only and abstinence plus when you say, "Abstinence ed doesn't hide information from kids, it teaches about condoms and birth control."

You talk and talk about abstinence-only programs, but then claim that they're something they're not. Why is that? Why do you decry programs that teach young people about condoms in several posts, but then claim in another that "abstinence ed" teaches kids about condoms?

And no, I don't tend to have sex in a lab. The point is that they are not teaching kids about the failure rate that condoms have when used properly. They get a much higher failure rate by adding into the mix, people who use them incorrectly or inconsistently. That's what "real-use" is all about - teaching kids that condoms don't work instead of teaching them how to stay out of that "incorrect or inconsistent" category.

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

Why is it unreasonable to expect people, when given that facts about stds, pregnancies, and such, to want to wait? All teenagers are not incapable of being responsible. Are some? Yes, but there are some who wouldn't use condoms either. And I know this is the US and not Africa, but abstinence programs in Uganda have been greatly successful, lowering the HIV infection rate in young adults from 15% to 5%, in just 5 or so years.

bettie 11 years, 6 months ago

assistant1234, you've just illustrated the underlying attitude of abstinence-only proponents: kids who aren't going to wait until marriage to have sex aren't worth saving. got pregnant? sorry, should've waited. got aids? sorry, should've waited. in other words, we told you so.

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

"What is being proposed by the fundamentalist christians is to remove everything except abstinence education."

That is not true.

"Why do you decry programs that teach young people about condoms in several posts, but then claim in another that "abstinence ed" teaches kids about condoms?"

Decrying the programs you speak of is not decrying teaching about condom use in and of itself.

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

bettie that is ridiculous - I am simply advocating promoting abstinence as the best method and teaching kids why that's so, and how to live in a way that would make abstinence more likely, etc., instead of promoting the use of condoms as the best method. I don't believe condoms are reliable enough to gamble our lives with and I don't believe sexual activity is good for children's mental and physical health.

bettie 11 years, 6 months ago

so which is it? abstinence only or abstinence plus? the curricula fall into these two categories, and i'm not sure what you're advocating or criticizing. the heritage foundation examples you used (and most of your posts) are all about abstinence-only programs. make no mistake, there is no room for teaching kids about contraceptives in abstinence-only education. you can't be for abstinence-only AND for teaching about condoms. so i'm asking again, which is it?

bettie 11 years, 6 months ago

again, NO program, whether it teaches about contraceptives or not, is going to tell kids that condoms are safer than abstinence. that is ridiculous. as i'm pretty sure i stated earlier, any sexuality education program at any point on the spectrum from abstinence-only to comprehensive is going to emphasize that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancies and STD's.

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

I'm not sure what you are talking about - I know of no programs that DO NOT teach about condoms. You act as if abstinence ed pretends condoms don't exist. The programs cited in the journal articles used by the heritage article do not deny the existence of contraceptives.

I am not some pundit advocating for a particular point by point curricula - I think that the best thing for students is to be taught that abstinence is best and how to implement it in your daily life. This should be the center of a sex ed program, in my opinion.

Ceallach 11 years, 6 months ago

More safe practices should be used, NOT safe sexual practices. Other than abstinence, there are NO safe ways to have sex and completely avoid the possibility of pregnancy and/or disease. Education should be reflecting this truth in it's programs. . . . it isn't! Everytime I hear someone raising the "safe sex" banner I want to cry. Our children are believing a lie.

Aren't you all tired of the commercials in which an attractive young woman (accompanied by an equally attractive young men) laments the fact that before this medication she felt like she lost days of her life? All that rhetoric followed by the precautionary background voice letting everyone know that they can still spread the disease, while on the medication, even without apparent symptoms.

Does anyone have reliable information that indicates a decrease of STDs? I'm betting such a report can be found just above the listing of verified unicorn sightings.

One of the major problems associated with today's sex education programs is their lack of driving home the point that there is ALWAYS a danger when participating in sexual activity.

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

In most sex ed programs abstinence takes up four percent of the program - and telling kids "if you don't have sex you can't suffer the potential consequences" does not constitute abstinence education. It is telling kids the truth about the consequences, the real (and yes, real use statistics) about the failure rate of contraceptives, and then telling them how they can live their lives so as to delay sex until they are older and more "self-sufficient" as another poster put it.

assistant1234 11 years, 6 months ago

Good point Ceallach.

I just wish the most emphasis had been placed on abstinence when I was in school. I have several friends and relatives who have to live the rest of their lives with an incurable STD. Whenever they meet a person they want to have a serious relationship with they have to go through the painful experience of telling the person about their std. THey have to worry and wonder if they will pass it on to their potential child. It is heartbreaking. Kids are taught about sex with the prevailing attitude of some of the above posters that "you are going to do it anyway because teens can't control themselves, so here's a condom, hope it doesn't fail and ruin your life, good luck." Teens need to be taught that it is possible and desireable to wait, that they are worth it, and about the joy of sharing sex for the first time with someone you love, and are comitted to. I wish someone had told my generation and the people I care about who are living with the consequences.

I hope I have at least made you guys think about Ab.Ed. You made some good arguments to the contrary, but my stance is the same (hey yours probably is too). Now I've got to get back to work. Have a nice day!

candylandxwhat 11 years, 6 months ago

Having an abstinence-based sex ed program can only do more harm than good. Sexual promiscuity is inevitable in high school. Those handful of students who are planning to wait until marriage are good to go... but what about the rest of them? Students still need to know the risks, facts, and truth. Saying, "the only way to not get pregnant is to not have sex" isn't going to do anything. There is still oral which many, many students engage in so they won't be a threat of a child. But what about STDs that condoms don't help prevent? If you know you plan to abstain from sexual promiscuity until marriage, then good for you. More power to you. But to all others, why be punished by being left in the dark? Some say experience is the best teacher... but when it comes to sex-education, students need real facts from real teachers, not from life's not so sweet lessons.

bettie 11 years, 6 months ago

did you even read the heritage article that you linked to? that entire article (and this whole debate) is about abstinence-only education versus abstinence-plus education. abstinence-only DOES NOT teach kids about contraceptives whereas abstinence-plus does.

i don't know how i can be any clearer.

it seems that you (and many people, for that matter) think that abstinence-only is where you tell kids that abstinence is best but also teach them how to protect themselves if they do have sex. (in fact, this is what abstinence-plus or comprehensive sexuality education programs do.) but most people are sucked into this false dichotomy, where they believe that you're either teaching abstinence or you're handing out condoms and telling kids to go for it.

when you talk about abstinence-only education, as the heritage article does, you most certainly are advocating for a particular type of curricula - one that does not involve teaching students about contraceptives.

bucephalus 11 years, 6 months ago

Abstinence-only education works? Says who?

A study published last month found that half of all teenagers who take abstinence pledges break those pledges, typically within a year.


And abstinence-only education and abstinence pledges don't even prevent STDs, because when those kids do start having sex they don't know how to protect themselves:


Can we get a little reality-based education here, please?

Confrontation 11 years, 6 months ago

"Based on a large national sample of adolescents, the study concludes that "Adolescents who reported having taken a pledge to remain a virgin were at significantly lower risk of early age of sexual debut."

Well, isn't this a stupid fact! Of course those who pledge abstinence are more likely to remain abstinent. Those who had no interest in remaining a virgin didn't sign this pledge. This proves nothing!

geekin_topekan 11 years, 6 months ago

Did somebody say free hotdogs and soda?

OK,we all agree that abstinence is ludacris and unrealistic. Try teaching the virtues of monogomy then. Look at that movie"attack of the penguins"or whatever.Monogomy is also a God given atribute.Same as multiplying like bunnies.Both are God given qualities that the species can't deny or defy. Dogs do it with the first dog that has the scent.They have to,they have no choice.Penguins remain monogomous for life.They have to,they have no choice in the matter.Thats the way they were made. So maybe humans were programmed by God as such.Teach teenagers to remain abstinent? Try teaching a dog not to pee on a tire.

KSChick1 11 years, 6 months ago

is is premarital sex if you never plan on getting married?

CanadianPassport 11 years, 6 months ago

I think we could learn a lot about safe sex from Ludacris, personally. Anyway, kids make bad decisions, but they're not idiots. Well, not all of them. It seems insulting to only teach them one facet of the safe sex spectrum. If the curriculm omits something obvious, kids are going to seek out alternative sources of information. Is it the Boy Scouts who say, "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst"? So can't we just tell them, "If you're smart, you'll keep big Jim and the twins out of the bushes, here's why ... but if you absolutely can't, try this ... and don't come cryin' to me if this happens ... "

Confrontation 11 years, 6 months ago

Sick_of_Right_Wingers: Please, don't try to state the truth on this board. Some people get upset.

gr 11 years, 6 months ago

bucephalus: "Abstinence-only education works? Says who?"

"CDC researchers attributed the drop in the number of births to programs that focus on sexual abstinence and other forms of birth control influencing this group,"

I don't know anything about Kaiser, but probably someone you don't like. But, who started the "Abstinence-only" discussion? The article said it was dropped.

Richard Heckler 11 years, 6 months ago

Abstinence is discussed in a sex education class. Parents preach abstinence even those who did not practice abstinence themselves. I've never known anyone or organization to encourage children to participate in sexual intercourse. Sex is getting a lot of free advertisement thanks to the no sex hoopla. Curiosity is likely not the only matter being aroused.

Having sex seems to be normal behavior otherwise passion would not surface. Somehow our bodies find themselves in certain positions as if it were to be the order of the day. I say it's better to explain to our children why this happens. Our young teen-age children should not operate under an illusion that pregnancy cannot happen just because one happens to be 10,11 or 12 years old.

Also if they are made aware of the time,effort and money necessary to raise a child in black and white terminology this in itself may deter thought of unsafe sex.

We must also teach that sex is not this awful sinful activity. AARP states it is healthy for relationships which tells me one again it is a natural act for human beings. In fact it is listed as one 7 suggestions for getting off the couch already. The article goes on to say that a program which includes frequent vigorous exercise will decrease the chances of erectile dysfunction. It went on to say that exercise will also minimize hot flashes as well as other symtoms of menopause.

bettie 11 years, 6 months ago


Watch your terminology. I've already had to have this discussion (at great length) with a poster today. "Abstinence-based" is comprehensive sex ed. It means you talk about abstinence AND contraception. I think you're confusing it with "abstinence-only", where no condom-talk is allowed. It's called "abstinence-based" because any instruction of human sexuality, even one that teaches about condoms and other contraceptives, will begin with communicating that abstinence is the best way to avoid unintended pregnancies or STD's.

Felt the need to clarify (again). Seems like a lot of people are confused.

christie 11 years, 6 months ago

Seems like a logical approach to an entire sexuality class. I mean it is a valid approach. But it's not the only approach. My kids knew about the birds and the bees when they were in 5th and 6th grade. I remember discussions about it when I was in the 5th grade too. This was many many many years ago. I have grandkids mind you.

To think youngsters don't have an idea about sex to begin with is incorrect. So we may as well be up front and factual about all aspects, including, but not limited to, abstinence.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago


The absence of a father figure in a girl's life is the biggest determining factor for risk of pre-marital pregnancy. The concept is completely logical to me: she makes a dedication with her father until the day when she takes a husband.

Also, just because 60 Minutes depicted the situation that way doesn't mean that the boys are off the hook, or that mothers are not involved. You seem to be hating right-wingers just for the sport of it.

bettie 11 years, 6 months ago

(maybe instead of marrying girls to their dads until they can be married to a husband, we should be teaching them to be self-sufficient. just a thought.)

usaschools 11 years, 6 months ago

re: research on "abstinence pledges"

Pregnancy rates are not an accuate indicator of sexual activity. As several prime-time news shows have publicized in recent years, such abstinence pledge programs claim high results, yet, when surveyed, it turns out the kids are having oral sex and don't regard that as sexual activity. A very low percentage of the children actually had no sex at all.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 6 months ago

Assistant, You can't force a teenager to use a condom if they've decided to have sex. You also can't force a teenager to practice abstinence, regardless of a "pledge".

What you CAN do is educate them about sex, about abstinence, about STDs, about birth control, then parents sit down and let them know what their preferences are. Then you sit back, cross your fingers, and wait. There's nothing else you can do. You can't lock them in their rooms, you can't be with them 100% of the time, and if they decide they're going to have sex, you can't stop them. You can stress abstinence, but then make sure they have all the information they need and are as protected as possible...whatever decision they make. And they WILL make that decision for themselves. With or without the parents' input. They have minds of their own.

If you are a father who attempts to keep his daughter away from any situation that could possibly lead to a sexual encounter, not only will it not work, but you're not going to be very popular with your daughter, and she will leave at the very first opportunity.

Although I don't see many parents (fathers especially) teaching their sons that it's not okay to score with as many girls as you can, as often as you can.

You can tell by watching TV that it's still considered a major, expected, wonderful accomplishment for a guy to score with every girl he dates.

I fail to see why marriage is considered this wonderful cure-all for the world's sexual problems, as if married people never get STDs or have unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.

ilovelucy 11 years, 6 months ago

Does anyone besides me see that Assistant likes to listen to their own bull ----? This thang joined this forum on 6/9 and has posted 51 times. Yawwwnnn.

emgraves 11 years, 6 months ago

I usuall don't post on here, but I figured I would put in my two cents worth. I may be way off here, but I bet if one was to teach abstinence only you would see a higher divorce rate. Kids would be getting married because they think they have to in order to be able to have sex, then realize what they got themselves into. I think they should be tought about every form of birth control, STD's, unplanned pregnancies, etc.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

Bettie, your post "maybe instead of marrying girls to their dads until they can be married to a husband, we should be teaching them to be self-sufficient. just a thought" is an example of what's wrong with parenting today. Read what you wrote. You wish for "girls" to be "self sufficient".

Think about it. They are kids. They need help with boundaries and decisions. They don't need to be "free range" and just let go to discover everything on their own. We're talking about children. Self discovery is a good thing, and self-sufficiency needs to be learned, but do that with household chores, not with baby-making. "Hmmm. Now I have a kid. NOW I understand what I did wrong." The price is too high for us to do that when it comes to sex.

squirly 11 years, 6 months ago

My whole problem with this method of sex education (wait 'til you get married, young people!), is that it assumes marriage is the be-all and end-all of fulfilling relationship types.

It also does not take into account all the young GLBT people who can't get married, even if they do want to.

The world is a bigger place than education programs like this are able to address.

Waiting until you get married is like buying the first house that's available based upon the realtor's description. You might get stuck with something that doesn't fulfill all of your needs, and then what? You either buy a new house or start spending a lot of time away from it. You gotta know what you're getting and whether you're compatible or not.

I've know plenty of relationships that were very promising, but the couple had NO sexual compatibility. Luckily most figured that out before a commitment was made. I know others who got married anyway, thinking that love would be enough and where are they now? Divorced.

bucephalus 11 years, 6 months ago


Read that first study I linked. Lots of juicy bits in there -- half of all kids who take virginity pledges break the pledges, usually within a year. When confronted about it they lie and try to say they never took any pledge. They're four times more likely to lie about their sexual histories.

Looks like virginity pledges are good at encouraging our children to break their word, claim they never made a promise when they did, and lie about what they've done in the past.

Of course, those are also prime qualifications for holding any sort of political office, so maybe this is just a way of grooming the next generation to take leadership of the country?

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago


Did it ever occur to you that many of us DIDN'T take the pledge, and DIDN'T wait for marriage and REGRET that decision (that's me)? I am only a hypocrite if I have made condemning statements toward those who have failed to maintain sexual purity. My Bible says "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", which means "no one is perfect". My pro-abstinence posts are not an attack on those who have failed to maintain abstinence. I'm the President of the "Oops, did it actually go IN you?" club, so I won't be bashing anyone on that subject.

You really need to calm down. Or, work harder at understanding someone's position before going nutso-ape on everyone. For C. Man to call people the "immoral left" may have been a little too much, but don't abuse all of us over your out of control flame war with C. Man.

Geez. Take a walk around the block. Have a cig. Do whatever you "do" to calm down. You are really being abusive. All constructive discussion just screeched to a halt with that post.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

"What wonderful parents liberals are encouraging their daughters to be prostitutes and porn stars."

Come on, C. Man. You basically just connected the idea that those who don't support abstinence education are pushing their daughters into the sex trade.

Do you see why things get so ugly on these boards? Some of us can only feel good about ourselves if we are hammering someone else, and that has nothing to do with being left/right religious/not.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

"Speaking as a parent, if you've seen any footage of these "virginity pledge" ceremonies, they are CREEPY!"

Hey, we are working on it! Next year there will be a lazer-light show, and the Osmonds will be playing at the reception.

Laura 11 years, 6 months ago

I'll probably regret jumping into the fray, but here goes. For what it's worth, it does suck to grow up without a dad. You DO have confusion about boys, men, sex, etc. I'm awfully proud of the job my sainted mama did with three small kids and no father, but I have to tell you, I would never, ever, ever set a child up to fail by purposefully having a baby without a father figure who will be there 24/7. Yes, I know this is impossible and I know same sex couples and they do great jobs raising kids and everything else, but as a girl raised without a dad, I had terrible times with my sexuality and yes, I blame not having had a father.

Laura 11 years, 6 months ago

And to clarify further, I voted a big fat NO on the gay marriage amendment, I despise the Kansas AG, and think Dan Quayle is a flea on the dog of society. But I'm all about the dad.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

Thanks, Laura. It took someone who was "there" to be able to explain that truth.

Girls learn how to pick a male mate from their fathers. Boys learn how to be men from their fathers. Most women who pick "bad" men had no father in the home (either physically absent, or emotionally absent). When we hear the mysoginistic lyrics of today's rap and hip hop coming out of the inner city, that is not due to race or class, that is due to the fact that most of the heros of rap had no father in the home, so all women are "hoes" to them, and objects of sex to be used up and discarded; not to be loved, not someone to be connected to, as God intended. John Eldridge refers to it as "going to Eve" for fulfillment, and when fulfillment is lacking, despising "Eve" for not being the end all be all of that the man expected her to be. This is one of the biggest reasons why, even after women's lib, it's still harder than heck to be a woman in our "enlightened" society. The healthy dynamics that we yearn for in relationships are best learned at home, with both (emotionally and spiritually healthy) parents fully engaged in the emotional development of the child.

Thanks again, Laura. That was powerful.

hottruckinmama 11 years, 6 months ago

my god contard what era did you grow up in? 1920 something? good girls are republicans and bad girls are democrats? my next door neighbor is a red hot republican and let me tell you she has a different car in that drive-way about every night.

Steve Jacob 11 years, 6 months ago

This is a tough debate with no real answers. BUT, with the internet, everying it a mute point. Everybody knows what and how by the time they hit jr. high. I world has evolved, sometimes not for the better.

"We are a generation of men rasied by women" Fight Club

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

LMH offers courses in CPR, smoking cessation, child rearing, child bearing, diabetes control, cholesterol contorl, and more, for very small fees. The public schools do not offer courses in these areas, yet all students could benefit from them.

The board of education has implemented an "opt in" policy regarding sex education, and wants to limit the education to abstinence only.

I offer up a compromise. USD 497 removes sex education from its curriculum; it negotiates with LMH to offer after school classes in all the topics mentioned above, plus sex ed classes, covering all methods of birth control and the risks associated with sex, to interested students, with 100% scholarships funded by USD 497.

Those students who are interested, and whose parents approve, attend a class presented by medical personnel with content that is not under the jurisdiction of the school board.

USD 497 would give students academic pass/fail credit for attending the classes.

hottruckinmama 11 years, 6 months ago

i always have thought conservatives show a nasty ill-bred interest in other people's sex lives. i bet my bottom dollar most of them are nastier than most of us "liberals" ever thought of being if the truth be known. they just hide it better.

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

hottruckinmama, I am a conservative, and you appear to respond to my post that appears before yours.

What, specifically, about my post shows an ill bred interest in other people's sex lives and is "nasty"?

hottruckinmama 11 years, 6 months ago

i wasn't responding to your post. it seemed pretty reasonable. i was responding to the more unreasonable among us.

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

Rather, that I didn't even read the thread.

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

Xenophon's post of 7:59 should cause him to receive a visit from the LPD the next time he shows himself at Louise's West.

xenophonschild 11 years, 6 months ago


Not a little inclined to fascism, are we? I write literary fiction, and it may be that anything more than: "See Spot run" would be wasted on you.

I have noted you: thou art the enemy.

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago


Thanks for catching my back, c-man.

xenophonschild 11 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

xenophonschild 11 years, 6 months ago

local conservative duo:

I'm under contract with a New York literary agency to sell my second novel - Fleeing Aceldama - about a racist ex-convict who falls in love with a young black woman. It is set in Lawrence, circa 1990.

The book I'm writing now - A Smile From Xenophon - is about a small-town Kansas sheriff who struggles to keep his community alive during the Great Depression/Dust Bowl.

Sorry for the tardy response, but some of us have to work for a living, and need our beauty sleep.

Have a nice day.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

C. Man:

Why do you call yourself conservative? You are very far from moral conservativism.

You decry the sexual immorality of today with words of hate and anger. Your words are as immoral as the prostitution you accuse others of embracing. Would Jesus call someone a "Libtard" or "idiot"? You acused people's mothers of being prostitutes!

Re-read your posts of yesterday and answer this question: Jesus said "he who says 'raca' [Aramaic for 'empty head'] will be subject to the fires of hell". How does this concept apply to you?

The apostle Paul wrote "because of you, the name of Jesus is being maligned among the Gentiles all day long". You are using your angry devotion to religious principles as a front for something "conservative" or "Christian", but it is far from either of those. As Jesus put it, "out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks". Your heart is deeply wounded and angry, and you need to repent.

To the rest of you: I want to apologize for C. Man. Clearly he has issues, but do not read his posts and leave here believing that he represents conservative thinking. He's a wounded, angry man who needs to find a way out of his fury.

sandersen 11 years, 6 months ago

If memory serves, if one wishes to look at a laboratory of sorts for abstinence-only education, take a gander at the teen pregnancy rates in Texas, the highest in the land.

As to those who would insinuate that fellow human beings they have never met are immediately horrific parents of future prostitutes, I am appalled and deeply saddened. This circular reasoning and snake-speak are the reason I am 100% honest, non-hypocritical and scientifically factual with all five of my children (who all have the same father- can you imagine that!). Sexuality is as much a human trait as breathing, as we all geared as an organism to propagate our species. Since we no longer marry off our daughters and sons at 11-14 years of age, it is our duty to give a clear and non-shaming information to our children so they can make responsible choices with their lives. Notice I made not a single negative comment toward the character of those who may disagree with me.

The ugliness in current discourse does nothing to create a solution, but does much to divide us as human beings and make us impotent to forge a better future for our children.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

"take a gander at the teen pregnancy rates in Texas, the highest in the land"

Whatyamean, "in the land"? Texas isn't part of the USA anymore, is it?

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

It was a joke, swbsow

So, C. Man, your understanding is that because I choose to not be sinfully abusive toward others in my posts, I'm going to be rejected by God? I'm not cussing anyone out in the name of God, so I'm "lukewarm"? Your attitude is that the only way to take a stand on morality issues is to be abusive and to accuse people (people you've never met) of being prostitutes? You are taking the path of F. Phelps.

What did Jesus say to the woman caught in adultry? He simply said "go and sin no more". Did he tell the Samaritan woman at the well that she was worthless, did he ATTACK her for her promiscuity? No, he gave her direction, with gentleness, which is what Paul commanded Timothy to do in II Tim 2:24-26. How could you apply II Tim 2:24-26 to the way you've been approaching people on these message boards?

You just used God's word to respond to my attack. But, the thing is, what I did to you wasn't an attack. Do you think God gave you his word so that you could use it as a weapon, to defend your ego? Do you think He's happy about that? You need to find "peace, patience, kindness, love & self control" (Gal. 5) in your faith. You cannot find a place in the Bible where quarrelling is "good", but there are many places where it is "bad". You are quarrellsome, and by choice. Be obedient to your God and repent of your anger.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

"If I call someone names and you condemn that action but "tolerate" adultery then you are a hypocrit"

Quote me: when did I tolerate adultery?

"God hates sin."

Yes. Do I have to hate people to hate sin?

"God's word is a sword".

Yes, GOD'S WORD (the Bible, inspired by God and brought to life by the Holy Spirit) is, but you are spewing filth, not holy words such as those of God. In all your horrible words, you never quoted any of God's words, you just ATTACKED with some of the most hateful posts I've ever read. How can you put your words on par with God's? You are using the holiness of God as an excuse for you to act out in your flesh. Your words are not spirit-driven, they are for the intent of hurting others. That is satanic in origin, not spiritual.

I challenge you to find any TWO people who regularly post here who will say "I think his posts reflect the heart of God and are consistent with Biblical concepts". Find someone who will defend your worldly attacks. You are not defending God, you are just speaking in the flesh, and it comes out in your posts.

"The one who says he is in the light yet hates his brother is in darkness... the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him." (I Jn chap. 2)

Embracing hate is the worst thing you can do to yourself. The first two commands in scripture are commands to love. You are rotting your own soul with the hate that you direct towards others.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

Here I am, a Christian, quoting scripture, and you call me "OldEnuf2BDumb". For all you know, I worship in the same place you worship. How awkward to think that someone that is supposedly going to spend eternity in heaven with me chooses to call me "dumb" on earth. You don't see what's wrong with that?!

Congratulations: you have joined the ranks of yourworstnightmare. He calls me a similar name. You two are the only one's who stoop that low.

gr 11 years, 6 months ago

Old: "For all you know, I worship in the same place you worship. How awkward to think that someone that is supposedly going to spend eternity in heaven with me chooses to call me "dumb" on earth."

Are you saying only those who worship in the same place as you will go to heaven?

Or are you saying all those who go to a place of worship will go to heaven?

OldEnuf2BYurDad 11 years, 6 months ago

I'm appealing to his beliefs (or trying to). I'd like to think that most of the people who worship with me are heaven-bound, by God's grace. So, I'm hoping that he'd see how odd it is for him to be so willing to attack me, when on Sunday morning, he may be calling me "brother".

GR, why did you ask that? What in my quote suggests that I'd exclusively think that ONLY those who worship with me are heaven-bound?


C. Man: I think you need professional help. That's not an attack, that is me hoping you get better, someday.

gr 11 years, 6 months ago


Just trying to ease the tensness with some sick humor.

You seem to overly qualify your statement quoted which would give cause to someone to think you believed that.

Must be in an extra defensive mood and all.

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

swbsow wrote: "Godot, I think that is the first post I can agree with you on."


Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

swbsow, you do realize that my compromise was actually quite conservative, don't you? Take sex education out of the schools, put it in the hands of the medical community, and make it totally voluntary, with parental approval.

ChinaSyndrome 11 years, 6 months ago

A few comments...

1) Marriage as a cure for STDs and pregnancy fails on several levels. Marriage would work if everyone could get married. Sadly, the government denies the right of legal recognition of partnership to many people. If I were writing this a mere thirty years ago, it would be anyone dating someone outside their racial and ethnic groups. Now, I refer to inability to have state recognized same-sex marriages. (I am not asking the church to recognize such unions, just the government.) Also, as I echo comments written above, marriage doesn't prevent STD transmission as partners cheat or "mess up," nor does every couple who creates a child stay together. Marriage doesn't guarantee any protection other than that provided by what is in reality a piece of paper. It is the couple, not the paper, not the state and not the church recognition, that makes the relationship functional and successful.

2) Why can't we teach both? I was raised learning about abstinence, abortion and safe sex. We don't have to have it all one way or the other. Why can't the educational program be focused on such a simple idea? (If someone above has said this, pardon my repetition.)

3) As much as I dread to agree with some of the above responders, I do believe parents should have more influence on their children, but not in the way that it limits what is offered at their school. Parents should be teaching their children morals, ethics and effective decision-making. I doubt any parent does a complete job of teaching their child about sex and sexuality, but a parent can do the excellent job of teaching them to make good decisions. I feel this is an excellent compromise because it allows parents who don't want their children to have sex until marriage the ability to teach them that. It also allows for parents who think there are bigger evils in the world to teach their children those beliefs. To reinforce this, I will say that D.A.R.E. did nothing to prevent me from doing drugs. Learning about them in school had no effect either to make me want to take them. What did prevent me from ever trying drugs was learning to make smart decisions. My parents taught me decision-making, even though they were both hard-core hippies who would have had no problem had a chose to light up a joint.

I probably am asking for way too much common sense and level-headedness to be exercised, but, I wanted to toss out my two cents.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.