Sex Ed taught in Grade1 now!

[Smallc]

In the aggregate, you may be able to attempt a demonstration of empiricism but never on an individual one to one basis. Even your own statements, like "people often", demonstrate an absence of empiricism.

The point isn't to demonstrate one to one empiricism, it's to produce results that are repeatable in tests. We can do that (well not me) with social science.

[Pliny]

The point isn't to demonstrate one to one empiricism, it's to produce results that are repeatable in tests. We can do that (well not me) with social science.

we'll just have to disagree.

[Michael Hardner]

Nevertheless. The efficacy of sex ed is still in question, in my view.

. Here's a study:

National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine

The studies in this case do seem to compare apples to apples.

[Handsome Rob]

The point isn't to demonstrate one to one empiricism, it's to produce results that are repeatable in tests. We can do that (well not me) with social science.

If that is the case, and such information is readily available to us adults who are obviously far more adept at responsible decision making than those kids who need to be taught, then why do we still have issues with STD's & unwanted pregnancy beyond high school?

Mandatory sex ed for the adults next?

[Pliny]

The studies in this case do seem to compare apples to apples.

Sorry, Michael. I couldn't open the page.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, Michael. I couldn't open the page.

You need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Click the icon on this page.

[wyly]

The studies in this case do seem to compare apples to apples.

from the link

More than 40 percent of women in the United

States become pregnant before they reach 20 years of

age

wow,it's hard to believe...gotta love those abstinence programs...

Edited April 25, 2010 by wyly

[Pliny]

You need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Click the icon on this page.

I have AdobeAcrobat Reader Version 9.

I was able to pull up a study by shortening the URL and I think it was the same study. A compilation of peer-reviewed "successful" programs?

[Michael Hardner]

I have AdobeAcrobat Reader Version 9.

I was able to pull up a study by shortening the URL and I think it was the same study. A compilation of peer-reviewed "successful" programs?

I don't think so.

The authors identified 23 studies of school-based

programs that were published in professional journals

and measured program impact on behavior.

They then summarized the results of those studies,

identifying the distinguishing characteristics of effective

programs, and citing important research questions

to be addressed in the future.

[lukin]

from the link

wow,it's hard to believe...gotta love those abstinence programs...

Abstinence programs do work.

http://www.freeteensusa.org/IRE_AbstinVsComprehe_1A102B.pdf

[lukin]

Maybe schools need to promote strong families as the key to a better society.

"Educators may constantly bemoan teenage pregnancy and the frequency of illegitimate children, but their textbooks begin fostering the notion of family without marriage in grades 1 to 4.

Paul Vitz

Many problems we have today is due to the far-left liberal social engineering that has happened over the last several decades. The liberal mantra of "if it feels good, do it" has done a lot of damage to society.

Edited April 25, 2010 by lukin

[Michael Hardner]

Abstinence programs do work.

http://www.freeteensusa.org/IRE_AbstinVsComprehe_1A102B.pdf

Turns out that this is true:

Washington Post

"This new study is game-changing," said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex."

[Handsome Rob]

Turns out that this is true:

Washington Post

What I think would be more effective than anything else?

Bring in the 17 year old high school drop-out single mother to grade 8 orientation. Have her describe how she was drunk and wasn't planning, how he is nowhere to be found and the child support program can't get a penny out, how she has to work three times harder just to achieve parity with everybody else.....that's deterrent.

Bring in the reformed crackhead, complete with pictures, to explain what life turned into.

Shock & awe, make them think for themselves, give them a window into others experiences so they don't have to pay for it themselves.

[Pliny]

What I think would be more effective than anything else?

Bring in the 17 year old high school drop-out single mother to grade 8 orientation. Have her describe how she was drunk and wasn't planning, how he is nowhere to be found and the child support program can't get a penny out, how she has to work three times harder just to achieve parity with everybody else.....that's deterrent.

Bring in the reformed crackhead, complete with pictures, to explain what life turned into.

Shock & awe, make them think for themselves, give them a window into others experiences so they don't have to pay for it themselves.

How does instilling fear make people think for themselves? I think this idea is already a part of sex ed programs.

I think Lukin makes a point that the family needs to be restored.

Children can't threaten their parents with intervention form the State because they want to go out on the streets at night and their parents won't let them.

It really irks me that responsibilities of parents are eroded by the State and then the State has the nerve to ask where the parents are when some waif is found at 3 AM drugged up on the streets.

Wyly is going to complain about kids getting beaten by their parents in the old days. I hadn't noticed that that had been eliminated.

[Pliny]

Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.

I think these points are important. The message should be "Do it when you are ready, not when the opportunity presents itself."

There are more important things in life than sex. One is the future.

The choices and decisions they make today create their future. I will say that if the future doesn't seem to hold much promise and they have very little input to it then I would think it is more difficult to make good choices and decisions.

[Handsome Rob]

How does instilling fear make people think for themselves? I think this idea is already a part of sex ed programs.

Not so much fear, you gain experience through events like that. If you don't have to suffer the event, you are better off.

I think Lukin makes a point that the family needs to be restored.

Agreed. How though? Big challenge.

Children can't threaten their parents with intervention form the State because they want to go out on the streets at night and their parents won't let them.

It really irks me that responsibilities of parents are eroded by the State and then the State has the nerve to ask where the parents are when some waif is found at 3 AM drugged up on the streets.

You mean like the 8 year that sued her parents for grounding her, got the case heard in a court of law, not even the kangaroo court......and won?

Just a state of disbelief.

Wyly is going to complain about kids getting beaten by their parents in the old days. I hadn't noticed that that had been eliminated.

I'm glad I was spanked, I'm a better person because it. When I acted up in HS, I got punched, and learned. I don't understand these changes.

[Pliny]

Not so much fear, you gain experience through events like that. If you don't have to suffer the event, you are better off.

Observation is a bit of a teacher but the message in that sort of demonstration is a little mixed. The person who is on display is first of all the one that is being noticed. The one that has achieved, I hate to call it, "celebrity status" but for lack of a better term that's what it is.

So one doesn't just learn that this person made mistakes in the choices and decisions they made in their lives and their lives are ruined. He learns that, if all else fails he can become a commodity. Of course, one may feel sympathy for the "celebrity" as well.

There is also the level of understanding that it brings. I'm sure counsellors hear many times throughout their careers that they haven't "been there" so they couldn't possibly understand.

Of course there is some truth in that and the lesson that is being taught is to not be like or end up like that person; so does that create a deeper understanding or does it limit the persons ability to understand?

Agreed. How though? Big challenge.

Well, for one thing the nanny state doesn't make us better family members. It makes us dependent upon the State. Single parent families are not ideal but they are supported by an impersonal State. Granted State intervention is designed to minimize negative social impacts but people are then relieved of personal responsibility for any negative impacts on society let alone their own lives.

We also need to restore the security of person and property.

What else do we do? It will take decades to redefine the family, it's importance to society, and the individual roles within the family.

You mean like the 8 year that sued her parents for grounding her, got the case heard in a court of law, not even the kangaroo court......and won?

Just a state of disbelief.

There are many instances of this. A complaint to social services is a threat. This is what I mean by the security of personand property.

I'm glad I was spanked, I'm a better person because it. When I acted up in HS, I got punched, and learned. I don't understand these changes.

Discipline is part of learning. If we don't learn what it is we don't discipline ourselves. Learning to play the piano takes discipline. If you want to learn to play well it takes practice and you can either discipline yourself or let someone else keep you disciplined. In the end discipline will get you through it.

If we don't learn to discipline ourselves prepare to be disciplined later by life, and much more cruelly than if you did it yourself.

[ToadBrother]

If they're going to teach about homosexuality I hope they teach both sides of the story as backed up by science.

Such as anal sex is not good for you and damages the participants body as the anal cavity is not made for sexual intercourse and that the life expectancy for homosexuals is much shorter then that of heterosexual couples. These are backed up by science so if they're going to teach one they need to teach both sides of the story.

First of all, properly performed anal sex has no long term health hazards.

Secondly, lots of heterosexual couples partake in it as well, so it's hardly a "gay" issue.

[wyly]

First of all, properly performed anal sex has no long term health hazards.

Secondly, lots of heterosexual couples partake in it as well, so it's hardly a "gay" issue.

and not all homosexuals partake in it...

and certainly back homosexuality up with science...it is absolutely normal behaviour and was very important in our survival as a species...

[ToadBrother]

What I think would be more effective than anything else?

Bring in the 17 year old high school drop-out single mother to grade 8 orientation. Have her describe how she was drunk and wasn't planning, how he is nowhere to be found and the child support program can't get a penny out, how she has to work three times harder just to achieve parity with everybody else.....that's deterrent.

Bring in the reformed crackhead, complete with pictures, to explain what life turned into.

Shock & awe, make them think for themselves, give them a window into others experiences so they don't have to pay for it themselves.

Oh hell, we had a teen mom come into our sex-ed (they called it family planning at the time) class to tell us how hard her life was. The problem is that when you're fifteen, you're essentially insane. You have no sense of priorities or limitations but an infinite amount of arrogance. Even in harsh societies where young women can be killed if they have sex before marriage, young people still have sex.

Part of the problem, to my mind, is that our modern culture has imposed an extended childhood on a species which really reaches sexual maturity at somewhere around 16. My grandmother was married when she was 18 way back in the 1930s, and she knew girls who were 16 or 17 who were getting married (a few because they already had a bun in the oven). Men, at 16, were working already. This has largely been the course of human history for thousands of years. The very kids we're counseling to delay having sex have forebearers in the not-so-distant past who were getting married and starting families at their age.

Now I'm not saying we should return to that. Clearly our social customs and economic system have largely rendered that way of life all but impossible. But we do have to be mindful that, to some extent, our culture has created a notion of sexual maturation which pretty much defies biology, and just as importantly, the biological imperative. To accomplish this without some sort of general education into sex, with a key component being "how not to get knocked up when your a teenager and screw up your life and probably the life of your kid" seems awfully important.

[Pliny]

First of all, properly performed anal sex has no long term health hazards.

Is there peer reviewed studies on that? I have heard and read the opposite but it is just anecdotal. Does size matter?

Secondly, lots of heterosexual couples partake in it as well, so it's hardly a "gay" issue.

I suppose for some the anticipation produces wood. I can't seem to get over my aversion to crap - is that crapophobia? Some people like to do odd things like with whips and chains. Does that seem odd?

Not my cup of tea, either. I just don't see the joy.

[ToadBrother]

Is there peer reviewed studies on that? I have heard and read the opposite but it is just anecdotal. Does size matter?

My understanding is that the chief risks come from overly-vigorous activity, or from insufficient lubrication (apart from the obvious risks of infection if done without protection). If size were a factor, then certain other functions of that area would cause damage.

As I said in my previous post, there are ways to do it safely. The whole point of education in this regard is not to tell people whether they should or shouldn't, but to explain to them the risks and ways to mitigate those risks. People have been doing this sort of sexual activity for thousands of years, so clearly you aren't going to stop them.

I personally wouldn't do it or recommend it. The risks of injury and of disease are too great in my mind.

I suppose for some the anticipation produces wood. I can't seem to get over my aversion to crap - is that crapophobia? Some people like to do odd things like with whips and chains. Does that seem odd?

Not my cup of tea, either. I just don't see the joy.

I don't see the problem with not wanting to do it.

Edited April 26, 2010 by ToadBrother

[lukin]

and not all homosexuals partake in it...

and certainly back homosexuality up with science...it is absolutely normal behaviour and was very important in our survival as a species...

What was very important in our survival as a species?

[ToadBrother]

What was very important in our survival as a species?

Brains mainly, coupled with the powerful social structure we share with the other great apes.

[Wild Bill]

Oh hell, we had a teen mom come into our sex-ed (they called it family planning at the time) class to tell us how hard her life was. The problem is that when you're fifteen, you're essentially insane. You have no sense of priorities or limitations but an infinite amount of arrogance. Even in harsh societies where young women can be killed if they have sex before marriage, young people still have sex.

Part of the problem, to my mind, is that our modern culture has imposed an extended childhood on a species which really reaches sexual maturity at somewhere around 16. My grandmother was married when she was 18 way back in the 1930s, and she knew girls who were 16 or 17 who were getting married (a few because they already had a bun in the oven). Men, at 16, were working already. This has largely been the course of human history for thousands of years. The very kids we're counseling to delay having sex have forebearers in the not-so-distant past who were getting married and starting families at their age.

Now I'm not saying we should return to that. Clearly our social customs and economic system have largely rendered that way of life all but impossible. But we do have to be mindful that, to some extent, our culture has created a notion of sexual maturation which pretty much defies biology, and just as importantly, the biological imperative. To accomplish this without some sort of general education into sex, with a key component being "how not to get knocked up when your a teenager and screw up your life and probably the life of your kid" seems awfully important.

At last! A thread full of logic and reason! I think you've nailed the most important point of the entire thread, TB.

We do have a social and biological contradiction. Somehow, over just a few generations, we have extended the concept of childhood or at least adolescence to a far higher age than ever before. There was a time when by 16 a child was considered full grown. Not necessarily experienced but capable of making their own way in the world and would learn from their mistakes and successes.

18 year olds flew Spitfires, becoming Squadron Leaders. Women of the same age drove ambulances through battlefields in war torn Europe, or ferried airplanes across the Atlantic into Britain.

Now we expect them to stay in school. Usually this means they are in almost their mid 20's before they achieve their desired degrees, or older. The cost of this education is such that they likely have no choice but to live at home. If their schooling takes them away from the family home they live there during school breaks while trying to find a summer job.

We no longer consider them adults! The lack of life experience is considered the same as immaturity.

However, we are fooling ourselves. They ARE adults, both biologically and socially! If they are still socially immature that is a fault of how we regard them, not of their capability to learn.

We have built an "assembly line" structure to achieving adulthood that does not correspond with reality. No wonder we seem to be at a loss as to how to handle the problems generated by having a flawed structure in the first place!

It is probably hardest for young women. They are under strong hormonal drives to reproduce. They are often discouraged by "social zealots" from using birth control as it might lead to actually HAVING sex! Too often, they end up having sex anyway.

Meanwhile, they can't marry at the traditional age of 16-18. They need higher education not just to support themselves if they make that life choice but to contribute to a family income if later on they do marry!

Fooling with Mother Nature always has consequences...

Edited April 26, 2010 by Wild Bill