So much for "abstinence only" sex education....

[j. d. worthington]

Great results we're seeing:

Study finds 1 in 4 US teens has a STD - Yahoo! News

Title: "Study finds 1 in 4 US teens has a STD", from AP, by Lindsey Tanner, datelined Tue., Mar. 11, 2008.

While I'm not crazy about teen sex, it's pretty damn' clear that focusing on that as the goal is having nothing but deleterious effects -- from creating a lot of obfuscation on what "having sex" is, to complete ignorance of how their bodies work, how diseases are spread, and what to do to prevent them. It's time to get past the b.s. agendas and start dealing with the facts, both medical, sociological, and emotional, if we're going to take good care of our kids....

[thaddeus6th]

Some time ago I read of an African nation, perhaps Uganda or the Congo, where the ABC system (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms) was used to great effect combating HIV/AIDS.

Then some godbothering Americans laid on a shedload of funding, with the proviso that only abstinence was taught. Shockingly, the HIV/AIDS rate shot up.

[The Ace]

Tell us something we don't know. No matter how little we like it, teenagers are going to experiment with sex.

The only sensible course is to make sure they know how to do it safely, avoiding STDs and pregnancy.

I swear, if they ever invent time-travel, my dearest wish is to go back and convince the parents of these god-botherers to use a condom.

[Delvo]

There's a way in which "shockingly high" teenage sex rates, or an increase in them, is a good thing. The more of it people are faced with, the closer our culture is to responding by acknowledging the fact that these people are adults, not children. And if we'd treat them as such, a lot of other problems which stem from treating adults as children would be prevented.

[dustinzgirl]

I don't understand why we don't focus on the choice to be responsible and the choice to own your future and your body. Doesn't our educational departments think that teaching our daughters and sons to respect themselves and make responsible choices is much better than trying to make their choices for them? This is what happens when we try to make choices for them...they don't do what the adults say...no kid ever does....c'mon people!

[littlemissattitude]

This is what happens when the people making the decisions about what we teach our kids have the idea that giving them any information about sex and the issues surrounding it is the same thing as "promoting" having sex or "giving them ideas" or "giving them permission" to have sex.

Oh, well, what can you expect from a culture that calls a perfectly natural and necessary (if we wish to continue as a species, at least) biological function "doing the nasty" at the same time that it uses sex, or at least sexual attraction, to sell virtually everything?

Not saying that kids going around having sex is a good thing; but, as the Ace said, kids are going to experiment, no matter what. Hormones pretty much guarantee that, even aside from cultural pressures...and there are cultural pressures. There are all kinds of cultural restrictions and taboos on the act but then the message is sent in all kinds of ways that anyone who isn't having it or doesn't feel particularly interested in having it all the time is some sort of freak.

I don't know about other cultures, but our culture in the United States is really screwed up about sex.

It's interesting this has been brought up, by the way. I'm working on a blog post about how weird people are about sex, and how I just don't understand why people seem to feel so threatened by issues having to do with it.

[Lioness]

I don't think sex ed should be abstinence only. It would only arouse curiosity in teens, and make them want to experiment (like they didn't already). Basically when I got to sex ed I didn't learn much new stuff, I had picked a lot up through thiangs I had heard.

I do think though that contraception and STD prevention should be focused on more. What do do if a condom breaks, there are more kinds of contraception than the pill and condoms, condoms are the only thing that helps prevent STDs as well as pregnancy etc.

[purple_kathryn]

I think the problem is that they're opting to take the moral high ground over facing reality.

People, particularily hormone charged teenagers, are going to have sex. Instead of pretending that they really aren't - give them the most useful information ie contraception

[Cayal]

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

Some time ago I read of an African nation, perhaps Uganda or the Congo, where the ABC system (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms) was used to great effect combating HIV/AIDS.

Then some godbothering Americans laid on a shedload of funding, with the proviso that only abstinence was taught. Shockingly, the HIV/AIDS rate shot up.

I believe it was the Congo, I read that recently as well (or was it a South Park episode) and the rate was cut down to like 5%, I didn't read about the rate rising.


Ah I was wikipedia'ing HIV Aids thats where I read it.

[Nesacat]

Instead of trying to make moral decisions for people other than themselves, they should get down to giving out the most comprehensive information possible about contraception and STDs. And then let the people who need to make these choices, make them. At least the choices will be informed ones.

[Parson]

This is a flawed argument. I am not defending "abstinence only" education. A lot of if might be hog wash. The kind of education that is needed is moral education, which by law in this weird country (USA) is nearly illegal.

However, my point is that the correlation between rising rates of STDs in teenagers and the failure of "abstinence only" is not proven by this study. We have two facts which may be related. STD's are rising and "Abstinence only" education is promoted by the US government. The two might be related but there are a lot of variables which are not considered. Some obvious ones are that there is no evidence that any other kind of education would work better. Second, this kind of education is not ubiquitous in the US school systems. Some teach much more of what most posters here believe should be taught. Maybe the rates are incredibly high among these teenagers and lower in others? Maybe there is absolutely no difference?

Secondly, the point that teenagers will be teenagers and experiment is only partly true. Not every teenager does; and there were times and there are places where the amount of experimentation are considerably less. The real question is what kind of education will help children to understand that sex is a beautiful gift which is best shared with a life mate?

[The Ace]

You have a point, Parson, but enough teenagers are experimenting with only the most rudimentary ideas of contraception and disease prevention to make this a serious issue, however you slice it.

Ideally, sex would only take place within a stable and loving relationship, the kind that every teenager believes he or she has the first time they fall in love, but when the girl falls pregnant and neither of the parents understands how it happened (I've seen this myself in the UK) then the necessary education is obviously lacking.

Teenagers are not children. The problem is that they aren't adults yet either and while they cannot be simply told "Do this," they do need support from the adults around them, both parents and teachers.

[j. d. worthington]

Parson: a growing number of studies are showing a correlation between the two, and it's time for an acknowledgment of that where our educational boards are concerned.

As I said, the idea of teen sex isn't one of my favorites, either, and I agree with Ace that they are no longer children, but not quite adults yet -- the physiological evidence on brain development we've garnered over the past couple of decades shows that certain brain functions are still kicking in -- mostly having to do with the ability to reason, deliberate, and make complex emotional decisions -- all of which really are extremely important where this issue is concerned.

Ultimately, while the moral aspect of it does need to be addressed (though I take issue with the single moral model given above, considering the number of approaches to sex taken by so many different cultures over the years), I think it's much more important to address the immediate and long-term impact of what we're seeing here. STDs that can affect fertility, that can be passed on to offspring, etc., tend to have repercussions lasting more than a single lifetime -- they can affect generations, and not for the good.

So I repeat: I think it's high time we pulled our heads out of our posteriors and started using them properly, to address this issue with some degree of sense, reason, proportion, and an awareness (and acceptance) of the realities. Otherwise, we continue to fail the very ones we claim so loudly that we are most concerned for....

[Drachir]

The high rate of STDs in the US hardly seems surprising considering the way in which sex ed programs in the USA have been undermined by the religious right. When teachers are forbidden to teach techniqes of contraception (such as use of condoms) and sex is continually paraded before teens through the media it is only to be expected that STDs would be the result. It can hardly be expected that teens will abstain from sex when it is so invitingly portrayed and if they are ignorant of contraceptive practices a high rate of STDs will be the result. Another sad side effect has been the high number of children born out of wedlock.

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by Parson

This is a flawed argument. I am not defending "abstinence only" education. A lot of if might be hog wash. The kind of education that is needed is moral education, which by law in this weird country (USA) is nearly illegal.

However, my point is that the correlation between rising rates of STDs in teenagers and the failure of "abstinence only" is not proven by this study. We have two facts which may be related. STD's are rising and "Abstinence only" education is promoted by the US government. The two might be related but there are a lot of variables which are not considered. Some obvious ones are that there is no evidence that any other kind of education would work better. Second, this kind of education is not ubiquitous in the US school systems. Some teach much more of what most posters here believe should be taught. Maybe the rates are incredibly high among these teenagers and lower in others? Maybe there is absolutely no difference?

Secondly, the point that teenagers will be teenagers and experiment is only partly true. Not every teenager does; and there were times and there are places where the amount of experimentation are considerably less. The real question is what kind of education will help children to understand that sex is a beautiful gift which is best shared with a life mate?

Whose morals are you talking about? I'm sorry but there is no frelling way on God's green earth I'm leaving my child's---or allowing my child's school--morality up to other people. No. The only moral obligation any public school -- of which taxes from homosexuals, hermaphrodites, porn stars, atheists, heroin addicts and the rest of us pays for---is to teach the scientific theories and facts.

And as for that life mate stuff....how does anyone know who their life mate is? I'm all for monogamy, but I'm also for freedom of choice. Your body is your body and I do not have the right to force my morals down your throat. And what if the opposite was true? What if this was an Isle of Lesbos society, would you then agree that those morals should be forced down a child's throat? Of course not. I wouldn't either.