Right…because any parent will tell you that when you tell a kid not to look into or explore something, the NEVER do the exact opposite of what you tell them.
Just amazes me what people will believe despite evidence to the contrary. They either believe that “this time, it will work”, or (my personal favorite argument from denial) “It hasn’t been properly tried yet”.
Five bucks says that some of these people pushing this stuff (that won’t work) have their own (sex) demons. Plus, they’re old people normally. They probably have forgotten what sex is like.
Abstinence only programs are and always have been a failed proposition and it’s amazing to me that just like trickle down economics, no matter how many times its demonstrated to not work, certain people stand at their pulpit and insist this time is gonna be different.
Teenagers have sex is really no different than those that smoke and eat a steady diet of crappy American processed food. We’ve been told for decades how bad these things are for you and yet we just keep on doing them. You arent going to stop hormones by trying to scare a kid.
Of course I read the article. My middle name is research. My own question remains and it has not been answered. WHY does anyone want to know what I think? Again?
I can give a personal anecdote of the Netherlands method not only not working, but ending in a complete disaster. My opinion continues to be formed by real life experiences with family, friends, and current students.
Marriage is the Netherlands is not a big deal, either, or is having children outside of marriage. Everyone is very accepting of this and there is the argument that a relaxed attitude about sex is a very good thing. But something else to consider…I’ve known for several years that the Dutch have the highest depression statistics in Europe, and that includes all age groups beginning with twelve-year-olds.
Are the Dutch happy about sex and marriage not being a big deal, but unhappy about everything else? Very well could be the latter. Or, might it be that their attitude as a society about marriage and sex is a contributing reason for the high rate of depression? I don’t know. But considering a personal experience of a family’s later depression after trying the Dutch approach to sex, I wouldn’t rule it out. More studies (and more time) needed to make any determinations on that. All we have thus far is anecdotal.
So there you have it folks, Instead of giving me a reason to address as for why it matters what I think, I go far afield with prior personal knowledge and take the discussion into…depression. But everyone should have a nice day! 
Just a couple years after that study showed high rates of depression, two other studies showed the Netherlands to be in the top 5-10 happiest nations on Earth…highlighting the huge uncertainties in such studies (even in the study with the high depression rate, the Netherlands’ rate wasn’t statistically significantly different from any other nation).
So…that casts huge doubt on the idea that their attitudes towards sexand marriage are driving them to have differentially high depression rates.
What’s wrong with incorporating so called sex ed into a class that’s required, like general biology, the first available class? Biology includes human anatomy and physiology.
What human anatomy and physiology course is complete without a section on the male and female sex organs; what their function is, primarily reproduction; how they work as far as conceiving a baby; and how to temporarily not make them work?
No teaching a separate class that will for some always be a source of controversy and it would be education in the aspects of sex and reproduction as well as avoiding the latter until a time when it’s appropriate.
Exactly, nothing is wrong with it. My daughters and most of their classmates, found the whole thing boring, because their parents had already presented it to them at home. Besides, some school districts go a little overboard: Presentations in fifth grade, seventh grade, and then again in high school. However, I guess some parents in some states leave it all to the schools.
IMO a parent responsibly teaching their children about their bodies and a course that is more incorporated with biology, then repeated should the student take a separate anatomy and physiology course, is the best way to go.
I’ve problems with people on both extremes, both those who believe in a sex ed course that’s, shall we say, uninhibited and those who seriously believe the human body is disgusting and should only be enjoyed under the cover of night and for making babies…um, no, it isn’t, and no, being endlessly pregnant isn’t the only function of the female reproductive organs.
I remember the thread on the old forum about the state of Idaho and its constitution Per that constitution, parents must be notified even if their students are going to be taught about the male and female sex organs.
Um, what? They’re God given and serve divine purposes, function the way they do by His creation. Parents must receive notification for their sons and daughters to be taught about the sexual and reproductive aspects of their own bodies?
Why would it be any less controversial if it’s taught in biology than if it’s taught in health class?
Because there is nothing controversial about one’s God given sex organs. Everyone has one set or another.
There is nothing controversial about learning their location, structure, and function, as well as learning by middle school or high school how babies are made. Or even how to avoid making them.
If a parent believes in something like the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches natural family planning, let them teach it as an option as well. Let the school include abstinence and NFP as options as well as hormonal bc & barriers.
I seriously wonder about the sanity of folks who even think knowing how the reproductive organs work or don’t work (as in various causes of infertility, sterility, or, hey, why not teach slowing down with age as well) is something horrible and should at least get a permission slip from them. Also, incorporating it in a class that’s already there is fiscally prudent & would avoid the creation of a separate class and hiring of teachers.
You’ve pretty much described the abstinence plus comprehensive sex Ed classes that are already taught.
And we wouldn’t save in having fewer teachers. We don’t have sex Ed teachers. We have health teachers.
Sex Ed is taught in health because it makes sense to teach it there.
Like practically every other right wing policy this will do exactly the opposite of what they want (fewer abortions.) it will just increase the number of abortions.
These people are beyond dumb.
So kids in college where their parents are paying shouldn’t be having sex?
Heath class is often taught by a phys ed teacher so the kids might think it’s a fun physical activity. If it were taught as part of biology class the kids would be too bored to even care.
You can tell a teen that all you want. I’m pretty sure that Sarah Palin taught her kids that very message…and that turned out how? One could conclude that if Sarah had decided instead to arm young Bristol with the information on how to mitigate the risk of her decision, she may not have ended up with a child.
You can tell a kid not to have sex until they are supporting themselves, but exactly how are you going to enforce that exactly? Unless you plan on locking them up in thier rooms until they have jobs and are self sufficient or cornering the market on the resurgence of chastity belts, you are tilting at windmills.
Unfortunately for people who seet things your way, the facts show that your method simply doesn’t work, and is in fact actually detrimental to society as a whole. It creates individuals who are not prepared to deal with the outcomes of thier natural instinct, which, no matter how bad you would like them to ignore, some aren’t going to do. That, on the whole, is a bad thing.
That, however, is just MY personal opinion.
Sounds antidotal. You haven’t commented on why Dutch teen preg. rate is 4 times less than the US.
In this thread, I advocated:
a. True, some kids will not pay attention to the unit on the reproductive system, just like there are kids who will not pay attention to the unit on the digestive system or the circulatory system.
b. True, teaching kids about protection against STDs and pregnancy, will not insure that they use it. Some students have flat out told me they prefer not to use such “trappings” and to take their chances.
c. True, just because society stands together and advises kids to wait until they are physically and psychologically mature and able to support themselves is not going to stop kids from having sex.
Therefore, we shouldn’t teach reproduction; we shouldn’t teach protection; we shouldn’t teach abstinence? Should we also be of the mind not to teach people the value of a healthy diet and exercise, because after all, most people won’t bother with it?
That is NOT what you were advocating earlier in this thread.
You certainly have the jr hi stuff down pretty well, but what the high school classes? How about preparing them for when they need real info the most. Giving HS students access and info on condoms and BC. giving Them emotional support when they’ve decided to have sex instead of sneaking around which so often leads of preg.
If one of you daughters in HS or way at college had decided to take the decision to have sex, do really relieve she would come to you for support?
And please don’t say they would do that, the mother of most prego teens believed that until they got the bad news.
Your argument is the equivalent of not telling someone how to exercise because that would mean they could eat like ■■■■ and then fix the problem later. Its pretty silly on its face.
I didn’t imply we shouldn’t teach kids any of the things you attempted to attribute to my post. As a matter of fact, I said basically the exact opposite of that. Abstinence ONLY doesn’t work…I never said don’t teach abstinence…I simply pointed out that sticking your head in the sand and acting as if kids weren’t going to do the nasty is bad practice, and we should do the right thing and at least attempt to arm them with some information so the repercussions of the act don’t come as a complete surprise.
