What should public schools teach our children about sex? It can be a complex question, especially when dealing with morals, social norms, pop culture, hormones and health. When students sit down for their sex education, should teachers embrace an abstinence-only policy?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
"...researchers estimate that adolescent childbearing itself costs the taxpayers $6.9 billion each year."
Yeah... teenagers always have, and always will have sex. That's what teens do. You can teach them whatever you want, but when it comes right down to it, they will choose for themselves whether or not to remain abstinent. You are saying that teen pregnancies are costing a lot of money. Well, don't you think that if they'd had some sex ed teaching them about proper use of condoms, etc. that they could have avoided getting pregnant? Saying "don't do it" isn't going to stop teens. Besides, you are a religious group. You can't try and force your beliefs on teens. It is up to their parents to teach them that stuff. Not public schools. Public schools are for education not religion.
- mmsomekid July 24, 2008 6:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I agree that young mothers have a much tougher go at things. Ignorance of sex, though, does not reduce teenage pregnancy. That's why we should educate them instead of letting them experiment and get pregnant! Ignorance of sex just breeds curiosity, and kids will find ways to experience what everyone has been keeping from them. When you make things taboo, you make things 'cool' and interesting. If you make red shoes illegal, I guarantee you that 14 year olds everywhere will covet them and find a way to get them.
Education takes the mystery out of it. Having a dialogue about it is what kids, and parents, need.
Don't make sex a red shoe; make it boring, overdone, and uncool. Ask any kid: education is boring. It's a perfect formula and that's how you'll end teenage pregnancy.
- thedr9wningman
August 21, 2008 9:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If you want to make it really uncool, simply remind the kids that their parents do it all the time.
- Adam Hammond September 3, 2008 7:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Sorry, you really can't make sex uncool...it's like trying to suggest to people that chocolate doesn't taste good. Sex is fun, and always will be, because we are programmed to like and want sex. You can't fight mother nature!
- pwk October 30, 2008 9:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Teen abstinence is a very good idea. You are missing the point. The abstinence programs that you are advocating would only save taxpayers money if they actually lowered teen pregnancy.
- Adam Hammond September 3, 2008 7:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If I’m following your argument correctly, then I strongly disagree. I do not believe that it is the pre-marital sex which is causing the severe economic and social costs and also the personal pain, but it is the result of the sex, the babies, which has placed the burden upon society. There is nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. Actually, I do feel that if we lived in a perfect society, abstinence would be my preference for my teenager. Yes, it would be extremely desirable if all teenagers did practice abstinence. Unfortunately, we live in a very imperfect society. Teenagers MUST be given more tools to deal with pre-marital sex. Lately, pre-marital sex and pregnant teen-age girls seems to have become ‘real cool’. In the heat of the moment, teen-age girls and boys must have more tools at their disposal other than just abstinence. Obviously from the news these past few days, regarding the teen-age daughter of the Vice Presidential Candidate who is now expecting, the Abstinence Only Position doesn’t seem to have worked. If it hasn’t worked for the daughter of a Governor and now a Vice Presidential Candidate, how is it going to work for teen-agers living in impoverished areas and who also may not have a strong emotional support system at home. I say Abstinence Yes, but Abstinence and More.
- mellis September 11, 2008 3:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Since 1991, when federal abstinence funding began, births to 15- to 17-year-olds have dropped 43 percent" -- Can this drop be directly attributed to areas where abstinence education was used? Or was the drop seen universally? Many of the studies I've reviewed are deeply flawed: they introduce an enormous selection bias (those participating in the programs are already more likely to be abstinent). The studies cited here need to be reviewed to ensure the conclusions are statistically valid and scientific.
"The [CDC] study attributes the majority of the decline in teen pregnancy rates (53 percent) among 15- to 17-year-olds to abstinence and 47 percent to contraceptive use." -- This would suggest that eliminating contraceptive education would harm our goal of reducing teen pregnancy rates, since half of our gains come from contraceptive use.
"Even setting aside the physical risks, can a condom protect your heart?" -- The remainder of your argument is nothing more than an appeal to em
- Fastolfe July 24, 2008 10:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I pulled this off of the Wikipedia article entitled "Adolescent Sexuality in the United States":
"When parents become aware of what abstinence education vs. comprehensive sex education actually teaches, support for abstinence programs jumps from 40% to 60%, while support for comprehensive programs drops from 50% to 30%. This sharp increase in support of abstinence education is seen across all political and economic groups. The majority of parents reject the so-called "comprehensive" sex education approach, which focuses on promoting and demonstrating contraceptive use. Sixty-six percent of parents think that the importance of the "wait to have sex" message ends up being lost when programs demonstrate and encourage the use of contraception."
The quote is from a poll report conducted by the National Abstinence Education Association.
The issue seems to be a debate between extremes. Neither abstinence only or "comprehensive" seem to be the answer.
- Benjamin Tuttle July 28, 2008 6:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Both abstinence instruction and contraception "succeed" and fail. The data would indicate that both should be taught to reduce unmarried and unintended pregnancy. Yet having a child, even as a teenager, in itself is not wrong. It may require much additional effort, and when teens learn how difficult it is, especially when the father deserts the mother, they may wisely choose to avoid sex before marriage. Or they may choose contraception. What needs to be taught is that abstinence is better than contraception, not that contraception is good. Contraception just encourages more sex. One school required both boys and girls to carry around life-size baby dolls during class to give some idea of what it involves. Teaching what having babies as teenagers involves is a good idea. Taking human life in the womb is a bad means to an often well-intentioned end, and abortions increase with the use of contraception. Also, many teens resort to oral sex, thinking that it satisfies the partner without risking pregnancy. Such expressions of intimacy make later breakups much more difficult than if there had been less intimacy.
- goznes September 4, 2008 7:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Since the reality is that people are having sex (possibly) before they are ready they should be able to do so in the safest way possible.
It a bit like saying that since policemen would rather not be stabbed they shouldn't wear stab vests. In the long run we'd all like a society where nobody stabbed anyone but in the mean time we should protect those who are risk.
Providing young people with education about the emotional side of sex and encouraging them to abstain may have positive long term outcomes but until you can convince everyone to live this way (which will never happen of course) it has dangerous short term implications.
By ignoring all other forms of sex education you may simply be deferring the negative outcomes you describe. An adult who does not understand contraception is just as likely to experience depression at (for example) an unwanted pregnancy. There is no reason to think that uneducated adults in a better position to protect themselves than uneducated teenagers.
- willsurvive July 24, 2008 2:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I believe abstinence education should be emphasized because of the harmful emotional impact on immature kids that having sex at an early age in uncommitted relationships can have. There is no way you can take it back. Once done, its done. But that should not preclude factual presentation about contraception - kids are going to do this anyway - ultimately the choice will rest with them in a given situation. If they're going to do something stupid, at least let them know how to prevent spreading a disease or bringing a child into the world when they are completely unprepared.
- Obi1Kenobi July 25, 2008 6:32PM
Should 'Abstinence-Only' Sex-Ed be Taught in Public Schools?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Abstinence-only not smart
I noticed one of the groups that believed abstinence-only sex-ed would be the correct solution was a religious Christian organization. Not very earth-shattering to see by any means. But the separation of church and state is one of the more important decisions the supreme court decided on in the last century. I'm not either pro or anti abstinence, if someone chooses to wait until marriage to engage in sex, that is certainly their preogative and I respect that. But many of us are not in that mode of thinking and need the education and tools to survive the pangs of adolescence. For me, sex ed was not anything ground breaking, most kids are aware of the anatomy, but actually, it was one of the first times I was told about what unprotected sex could do, how to avoid it, and even social situations with the opposite sex. And not to start a war with the religious groups pro abstinence, but where exactly in the bible does it mention "thou shalt wait till they marriage"?
- Sundevil
July 13, 2008 9:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Bible Says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultry"
For the record, Sundevil had asked the question about where in the Bible it says 'thou shalt wait till marriage". Just to be clear, the commandment is Thou Shalt Not commit Adultry. In Gods eyes sex outside of marriage is considered adultry and thus a sin and something you shouldn't do.
Not that I agree, but you asked the question.
AS for sex ed, I think children should be taught the basics of anantomy in the early grades. I think they should then be taught all the horrific consequences of having sex before they are mature enough. Girls especially are very vunerable and I think schools should really emphasize how important it is to wait until you're older.
Also, kids should see what happens to a person with AIDS, STD's and/or the pain and suffering of having an abortion or giving a baby up. Single teenage moms should not be glorified, (JUNO).
The only problem I have with Sex Ed in schools is, the schools really have a lot of other things they need to be teaching such as Math/English, etc and ultimately it's up to the parents to be the main educators on this issue.
I realize some parents are unwilling or unable so for those kids, there should be something. I have three teenagers myself and my husband and I make a point of talking and explaining to them about sex. Even when they don't want to hear it! 'MOM...you're gross', is something I hear a lot of but I don't care. They'll thank me for it and as of now they're all good kids.
- terio818 September 3, 2008 7:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In response to "thou Shalt Not Commit Adultry"
You have that messed up. Adultry happens when you step outside of your marriage vows. Before marriage sex is called fornication in the Bible.
- UltraConservative October 23, 2008 9:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Keyword "Education" ...
Abstinence-only isn't education - it's a directive rooted in antiquated superstitious philosophies. That children have sexual bodies is a given. We can teach them how to use those bodies safely for a long, happy and healthy life OR we can pass to them our irrational fears and arrogances.
Passing irrationalism onto our children is nothing short of tragic and arguably abusive. Passing to them the means and attitudes for the fullest happy lives possible to them is our duty as parents and matured adults.
We are committed to educating others or we are not. There are no half measures worth discussing.
- Naumadd
July 24, 2008 7:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
24 yr old female here...
I believe that teaching absitnance- only in schools is a waste of time. It is by no means a bad idea...i wouldnever say that, but the truth of the matter is that if teenagers want to have sex...they are going to and you cannot stop it. you can teach all the reasons that kids should wait...but in the end, theyre going to do it if they want. I know the situations is different with everyone...but when i first had sex i was 17, and it was about 4 months after we started dating,we were eachothers firsts and actually continued dating for 5 yrs after that. i know thats not the case for all. but i did it bc i loved this boy and we both wanted to and were ready to. Teens should know where to obtain protection and how to use it correctly. i would rather my child know all the facts, then have sex not knowing anything. Like i said you cant stop them, so why not educate them??? Dont you want them to be safe? Educating is not promoting sex. Its helping teens think before they make THEIR choice.
- lanidee02 July 25, 2008 8:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
come on
I'm a little sci-fi. All girls or boys should have an implant at birth, almost like a tubal clip. After the age of 20 if they both have a job for 5 yrs and have a steady relationship for 5 yrs then they can be granted access to having children. They don't have to be rich. Just committed. There are too many kids with no dads. Too many nut jobs for moms. I had my first at 19yrs old with no direction. I like to think I was a good mom, but in hindsight I sucked. Now I have another 15 yrs later and have the chance to do it right. Or should I say with more maturity. Teenagers are going to have sex regardless. So fix the problem.
- momof2alienboys
July 27, 2008 8:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Two separate questions...
The decision about having pre-marital sex is ultimately one guided by a person's views on the appropriate time and place for sexual activity. The knowledge of how to prevent disease and pregnancy should be mandatory regardless of when an individual chooses to have sex. Abstinence should definitely been taught as the only foolproof way to prevent disease and pregnancy. However, once abstinence ceases to be an option (either in or out of marriage), then what? To equate comprehensive sex education with an endorsement of sexual activity is like saying you shouldn't teach nutrition class with materials on dessert because people might overeat. Ignorance doesn't build wisdom.
- jrr2ok July 27, 2008 8:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Can't control them...
I don't want my kids to have sexual intercourse until they're married, but at the same time I know I can't control everything they do. As much as it scares me as a father to know that they might make poor choices, it would scare me even more if those choices were made without all of the facts. Abstinence-only sex ed simply does not provide an objective look at all of the facts. Period.
- slacker
July 29, 2008 11:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Abstinence-only sex ed fails our kids.
While abstinence pledges and abstinence-only sex education may decrease rates of teens having sex while in high school, those same teens are four times more likely to have anal sex and six times as likely to have oral sex, both of which carry considerably more risk for contracting an STD. The problem with these religious groups is that they don't actually care whether actual progress is made, only that the material is in line with THEIR BELIEFS (not anyone else's beliefs, because anyone who doesn't think like they do is immoral and therefore inferior). Although all 50 states experienced a slowdown in their teen pregnancy rates in the late 1990s and early 00s, the states that had the least amount of progress were states with well-established abstinence-only programs at a vast number of their public high-schools (Arkansas, Texas). A number of AO curricula also plainly state a number of things that are simply not true, lying about the failure rate of condoms and their ability to stop HIV.
- DelBeano
August 1, 2008 10:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More information, please
Public schools are a place to educate youth. This interest is not well served by a program such as "abstinence-only" that is really a restriction of the educational content to only certain things that some groups prefer for political reasons.
Teenagers are not like toddlers, who do what you tell them because they simply and completely respect your authority. Teenagers rebel, they make decisions for themselves. We have a duty to provide them with the information they need to make those decisions.
Abstinence is a strong option for sexual safety, and one that should certainly be stressed in sex ed. But teenagers need to learn about contraception and what kinds of contraception can prevent STDs. They need to learn things that will defend them from stupid myths about pregnancy and STDs. Once they know all that, they may actually *believe* in the benefits of abstinence. Without that, this program will fail in every child who eventually rebels.
- mj75
August 2, 2008 12:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vows of chastity are easier to make than to keep.
Sex education should be for all, male and female chaste and unchaste, straight and gay. Yes, condoms do have a failure rate, but so do vows of chastity.
Children should be taught the consequences of sexual contact with others, including sexual transmitted disease and pregnancy. Like Saint Augustine, many would pray for chastity - but not yet. For young people like Saint Augustine, information about risk reduction may help to keep them safe while their better selves have a chance to come to the fore.
Of course, some parents don't want their children to be informed about condoms. However, the learning of the great majority cannot be held hostage to the objections of a religious minority.
- Michael Glass
August 8, 2008 5:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
They're going to have sex anyway
In my opinion, abstinence-only sex education is a real joke. Do you honestly think that they'll abstain if they want it that bad? Of course not.
I think the ideal "sex education" would recommend abstinence, yet expose students to other means of protection and contraception. Sort of like "we recommend against pre-marital sex, but if you insist on engaging in sexual intercourse before marriage, here are some precautions you should take."
By and large, this form of sex education is very unproductive. By using abstinence-only education, those who are going to have sex anyway will not be aware of the many great forms of contraception and protection that can be used, and put them at an even greater risk. By broadening the scope a little bit, we can make those who insist on engaging in these activities (despite the recommendation against them) more aware of the ways they can take care of themselves.
Abstinence-only sex education: preaching to the choir.
- bagpiper2005
August 12, 2008 5:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
get real
Sex is one of the great pleasures in life. Of course teens should pick their partners carefully and protect themselves, but to tell them "no" is a waste of time. It's perfectly natural to want to get some. These folks need to wake up and put their energy into some other problem.
- philomom August 15, 2008 4:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No it shouldn't
Back when I was in high school 22 years ago there was only one pregnant girl in the school. Now today, at the same high school there is a daycare and 9 pregnant teens. I recently asked my daughter if she had ever had a sex ed class, and her response was that no she had not but the class would be taught next year when she is a junior. Part of the problem as I see it is that they quit teaching sex ed in school. I had a sex ed class in 6th and 8th grade and even in health class in high school. Today, teaching sex ed in their junior year is way too late, for some they have already had sex by that time, thats the way it is in my neck of the woods. Teaching abstinence will not work, we must teach these kids the cold hard truth, not cover it up with abstinence.
- Skewed
September 3, 2008 10:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
An objective look at the semantics
Issues surrounding sex, sexuality and children will always be clouded by passionate opinions backed by little or no objective evidence or evaluation.
Instead, let's change the variables of the problem without changing the semantics or form too much. Instead of asking whether or not we should educate young people about sex before they have it, let's ask whether we should educate young people about driving a car before they do it.
If we trade marriage as a barrier of sexual freedom for a driver's license as a barrier of legal driving freedom, this plays out pretty simply. Would it be advisable to teach young people how to drive before they get their driver's license? I hope everyone can agree that the answer is "yes".
Given that, what would we do if young people were driving cars without licenses? Should we pretend that it doesn't happen and refuse to teach them how to drive? They shouldn't be driving anyway, but what if they cause a collision and injure themselves? Should we educate them about driving before they are ready to get a driver's license anyway, to improve their ability to make smart decisions and therefore help prevent possible negative consequences? Yes, we should.
That's just driving in general, though. Now, what if those same young kids were buying Ferraris and Lamborghinis by taking out 18-year loans and doubling up their paper routes? Does our obligation to educate now become more pertinent or less so? The kids are now dealing routinely with very precious cargo and extreme negative consequences in the case of mistakes due to inexperience or lack of proper judgment.
So what will it be? Teaching kids how to drive well (even before they probably should drive) to help them become better drivers for their own and others' sake, or ignore the problem and just hope that inexperienced drivers don't kill themselves or drive into your living room?
- h3h
September 4, 2008 10:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fear never works!
http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=9142807&nav=menu69_2_12
- karols
October 8, 2008 1:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why use schools to teach Sex-Ed???
Does anyone here really trust the government with matters like this? Whatever happened to the role of parent in this issue?
- F2XL
October 13, 2008 4:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Right on...!
My first reaction is similar to that of the presidential debates...All this rhetoric about issues in which no candidate has business making promises. Sex education. Just because it contains the word 'education' in it DOES NOT mean it's the government-school's responsibility. As a property tax owner, I have vested interest in how my money is spent. So do my neighbors who might disagree with me. The solution lies in the middle ground: don't "teach" the material because this debate will never be settled (especially as the 'educators' become more and more socially liberal.
This is yet another reason we homeschool our three children.
- Jefe
October 16, 2008 4:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Glad to see some agreement!
I think anyone who looks at this objectively will realize that if we trust schools with moral issues like this then that creates a VERY dangerous slippery slope for ethics and education as a whole.
- F2XL
October 16, 2008 8:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We're not teaching our children something: Morality
What we're doing is teaching our kids to be immoral from the start. We're telling kids to have safer sex and telling that it's okay to give a piece of your emotional self away to someone just to say we had a good time.
Ask someone who has had sex before marrige (it may even be yourself) and they'll tell you that they had a good time while they did it; however, most all will tell you that the long-term implications are what really matter. Every time two people have sex, they release hormones that literally bond them together emotionally. If you keep doing this over and over with every guy or girl you happen to like at the time, you give a piece of yourself to each person until there is nothing left to give. Sex then becomes just a routine.
Is this what we want our children to do? Let them have a good time at the expense of their soul? Do we just sit back and let our kids tear themselves apart while we could have told them about another way to preserve themselves? Do we want them to give themselves away before they get married, and when they finally do tie the knot, have nothing left to give? The answer is a resounding "no".
"They're just having a good time. What's the problem with it?" The problem is that us as mentors have allowed our future generations to rip themselves apart and have done nothing about it. Do we continue to stand back and not be apart of our kids lives? Never.
The time to act is now.
- filmfreak
October 30, 2008 9:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.