Urederra
Mostly harmless
That is not teaching, that is indoctrination.
Kansas does it again....
- Thread starter Turner
- Start date
Urederra said:
it is perfectly within the rights of a parent to teach their children the values that they themselves hold, whether you personally agree with them or not.
wow, idiocy, thy name is moral righteousness! 
After all, abstinence-only is proven to be rather ineffective (I remember meeting two certain people who thought that pregnancy could only happen after marriage, and not by sticking a penis into a vagina while unmarried
- they had no clue what 'sex' is).
Additionally, sexual abstinence is a religious rule, thus it has no place in schools anyways. A teacher SHOULD note that not having sex is the best way of not getting SDT or an unwanted baby, but there should never be any pressure on the kidds to 'not do it'. It quite simply interferes with their rights.
After all, abstinence-only is proven to be rather ineffective (I remember meeting two certain people who thought that pregnancy could only happen after marriage, and not by sticking a penis into a vagina while unmarried
- they had no clue what 'sex' is). Additionally, sexual abstinence is a religious rule, thus it has no place in schools anyways. A teacher SHOULD note that not having sex is the best way of not getting SDT or an unwanted baby, but there should never be any pressure on the kidds to 'not do it'. It quite simply interferes with their rights.
Eran of Arcadia said:
bolding by me - if you replace 'parents' with 'teachers', and especially once you replace 'they themselves' with 'those the members of the school board', then it is religiously motivated indoctrination.
Your version is fine, the one proposed by the schhol board would follow the altered version, and by unconstitutional indoctrination.
carlosMM said:wow, idiocy, thy name is moral righteousness!
After all, abstinence-only is proven to be rather ineffective (I remember meeting two certain people who thought that pregnancy could only happen after marriage, and not by sticking a penis into a vagina while unmarried
Additionally, sexual abstinence is a religious rule, thus it has no place in schools anyways. A teacher SHOULD note that not having sex is the best way of not getting SDT or an unwanted baby, but there should never be any pressure on the kidds to 'not do it'. It quite simply interferes with their rights.
I am not for a second saying that "abstinence only" has a place in schools. Of course, since much of its justification is religious, that can't enter into it; religion has no place in schools. What does belong is honest, mature discussion of sex, and unexxagerated descriptions of its consequences. Since actual abstinence (rather than just education about abstinence) is the best birth control method, students should be taught that abstinence is best. However, recognizing that most teenagers won't do this anyways, they should also be taugh how to avoid getting pregnant, or getting STDs.
Parents have a different set of rights, so if they want to encourage their children to practice abstinence, they can. Conversely, if they want to encourage their kids to have a lot of sex, I have no right to stop them. The schools will then be responsible for educating them on how to not mess up their lives through sex.
Eran of Arcadia said:
I never wanted to imply that you made any of the usual dumb 'absitnence is the only way' claims
We are in agreement here, mostly.What I do think is not quite correct is this:
this needs to be qualified: actual abstinence plus full knowledge about sex, that is the safest way - otherwise you'll end up with people who just do not know enough to make an informed decision about abstinence!
Also, I'd avoid the way 'best' - it is too easy to misunderstand that! It is the 'safest' way.
Urederra
Mostly harmless
Eran of Arcadia said:
Sorry, my first post was too short and ambiguous. I was talking about the opening post, not about your post.
What I was trying to say is if they only talk the children/teenagers about abstinence and if they only say that abstinence is the only correct way, that is not teaching, that is indoctrination.
Of course the parents can give the values they want to their children, after all, they are their parents, but it is still indoctrination under my point of view. And it is not bad that a parent indoctrinates his/her children, what I think is wrong is when schools do it without the parent's consent.
Okay, we are all in agreement. Yay. I would like to say that the problem with "abstinence-only" sex ed isn't the "abstinence" part, but the "only" part. Abstinence, if actually practiced, is the best method. But intending to practice abstinence, then failing to do so, and not knowing other methods of birth control, creates problems. I think that abstinence should be emphasized not because it is morally best (although I think that, it has no place in schools) but because it works. Likewise, all other methods should be described, so that no one finds themself in the situation of ruining their future because they didn't realize the consequences of what they are doing.
wow, three posters agree in a CFC OT topic ![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
Eran, in my school we were taught the following:
(1) Not having any sexual contact ensures no STD and no pregnancy.
(2) Sexual contact without penetration (oral sex, e.g.) should always happen with a condom, as the risk of accidental unwanted pregnancy is real, albeit low.
(3) Sexual intercourse should always happen with a condom
The reason for (2)+(3) being that a condom is the ONLY method to protect against BOTH STD and pregnancy.
(4) Additionally, hormone pills or other means (sperm-killing gels etc) lower the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.
This way, not only is everyone informed about all eventualities, but also the old adage of 'it's the girl's job' gets countered.
Worked well, btw - I know of not a SINGLE case of unwanted pregnancy on my school except for those who joined the school after the sex ed classes.
Also, sex ed should happen at least twice - once at around age 10 to 12 (at the latest), and then again a few years later (age 13?). Here, it must be taught how condoms are to be used - too many idiots do not know how (this is from a study on unwanted pregnancies DESPITE the use of condoms - boys pull them over, tearing them in the process, instead of rolling them down.
A third time sex ed, at around 16/17, can't hurt either.
Eran, in my school we were taught the following:
(1) Not having any sexual contact ensures no STD and no pregnancy.
(2) Sexual contact without penetration (oral sex, e.g.) should always happen with a condom, as the risk of accidental unwanted pregnancy is real, albeit low.
(3) Sexual intercourse should always happen with a condom
The reason for (2)+(3) being that a condom is the ONLY method to protect against BOTH STD and pregnancy.
(4) Additionally, hormone pills or other means (sperm-killing gels etc) lower the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.
This way, not only is everyone informed about all eventualities, but also the old adage of 'it's the girl's job' gets countered.
Worked well, btw - I know of not a SINGLE case of unwanted pregnancy on my school except for those who joined the school after the sex ed classes.
Also, sex ed should happen at least twice - once at around age 10 to 12 (at the latest), and then again a few years later (age 13?). Here, it must be taught how condoms are to be used - too many idiots do not know how (this is from a study on unwanted pregnancies DESPITE the use of condoms - boys pull them over, tearing them in the process, instead of rolling them down.
A third time sex ed, at around 16/17, can't hurt either.
carlosMM said:wow, three posters agree in a CFC OT topic
That's pretty funny, considering how much we disagree on other things, including, even, the underlying basis for our opinions on this topic.
So we must be right then, huh?
nonconformist
Miserable
How is abstinance "taught"?
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Two teachers demonstrate all prohibited moves in front of class.nonconformist said:
Kayak
Partisan
What, like Monty Python in The Meaning of Life?The Last Conformist said:
Again I can use my principle of "Matters of the heart are not the business of the state" to post my opinion. The state is represented by The Kansas State Board of Education, the heart is represented by the individual who is to practice sex or practice abstinence.
Teaching what sex is is the schools duty (perhaps right). Teaching how and when it should be done is not the schools task.
Teaching what sex is is the schools duty (perhaps right). Teaching how and when it should be done is not the schools task.
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
ainwood said:
Well, they did hit abstinence extremely hard in our Sex Ed (which was actually just a lessen in my biology, advanced biology, and health classes). The Health teacher however stated, that if you can't abstain, use protection. I think the class was thoroughly disgusted by the photos of what STD's can do to you. Yes he did show about 65 slides worth, and yes we had to have our parents sign a permission slip to allow us to participate in this section (unless we were over 18). But we've been taking similar classes since 5th grade. Grades 5-7 Sex Ed. as a section in our science class, 9th grade with biology, 10th grade with advanced bio and health.
This would be my sentiments. But they have PRETTY MUCH the right to preach all, and what they want.
MamboJoel
Cool.
Turner said:
The ultimate Source ! http://Source
To be serious, this came to my mind too : "How is abstinance "taught"?"
If it' a matter of reducing sexual violence I'm not quite sure it's the solution.
If it's about reducing sexual transmissions illness I'm pretty sure it's not the solution.
So appart from a course that would be meant to reassure a few parents, consolidate a certain political stance, and provocate big laughs in classrooms, I don't see any advantage in talking away from individuals one of the very autodidact learning that belongs to them.
Learning sexuality is very personal and in a way makes you learn things about life, wanting something you wont get, beeing desired, controlling impulsions, deception, sentiment of beeing stabbed; I don't think the sooner is the best, but the latter is the worst.
Great. Now someone please come in here and disagree so that we can make this interesting
MamboJoel
Cool.
Yeah, we need someone to agree with some Kansas politics, shall we look for Taliban posters ? ;-) (Joke)
The Last Conformist said:
FWIW, The Chappelle Show did a small bit about this back in the day - his (sarcastic) theory being that the way to keep kids from having sex would be to make them watch the principal seduce the most aged teacher at the school on a desk in front of them. Suffice it to say it was quite disgusting.
On topic, maybe Kansas should change their motto to "Kansas: leading the way backwards since 1861!".
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
You need to learn some Kansas history, my friend. That place was a royal mess in 1854.
Similar threads
