Many teens don't keep virginity promises [Archive]

thethinker42

12-30-2008, 05:54 AM

Parents should be the ones teaching their kids about sex, folks...I remember our sex ed classes, and those were always recipes for disaster (and they were not abstinence-only classes).

They SHOULD be teaching their kids about sex, but many of them AREN'T. And the fact is, many teenagers have sex. The consequences of unprotected sex (or even protected sex) are a bit too significant to err on the side of assuming that their parents are teaching them, because many simply are NOT. I cringe to think how my life might be different had I not had comprehensive sex ed in high school. By the time my parents approached me with any kind of "okay, you might find yourself in a position (fnarr) to need this information", I'd been having sex for two years.

I say let parents teach their kids the moral and emotional aspects of sex. But I absolutely 100% believe that schools should be teaching the *mechanics* of sex (and contraception, STI's, etc). There's just too much at stake to err on the side of NOT educating kids about it.

Cyia

12-30-2008, 06:02 AM

I would argue that the kids aren't old enough to make a binding "promise" anyway.

astonwest

12-30-2008, 06:03 AM

I say let parents teach their kids the moral and emotional aspects of sex. But I absolutely 100% believe that schools should be teaching the *mechanics* of sex (and contraception, STI's, etc). There's just too much at stake to err on the side of NOT educating kids about it.
Just because they're taught about contraception, etc. doesn't mean it's going to help when they're in the heat of the moment and Joe forgot to pick up the protection...or Joe really doesn't like them and Jill really likes Joe.

It was very surprising how many kids in our school growing up were ending up pregnant after being taught sex ed.

thethinker42

12-30-2008, 06:04 AM

I would argue that the kids aren't old enough to make a binding "promise" anyway.

Not to mention how much MORE embarrassed they might be if their parents find out...how much MORE guilt they might feel if they regret it afterward...because not only did they have sex, they broke a promise when they did.

Someone once described these pledges as a form of emotional blackmail. There are times when I think that description is quite apropos.

thethinker42

12-30-2008, 06:07 AM

Just because they're taught about contraception, etc. doesn't mean it's going to help when they're in the heat of the moment and Joe forgot to pick up the protection...or Joe really doesn't like them and Jill really likes Joe.

It was very surprising how many kids in our school growing up were ending up pregnant after being taught sex ed.

However, if they're in the heat of the moment and actually possess the knowledge about what a condom is, how to use it, what can happen if they don't, etc., they stand a better chance of actually USING it. A couple of kids who don't even know what condoms ARE - or the consequences of not using them - sure as hell aren't going to use them.

Some of them are still going to get pregnant, STI's, etc. Nothing is 100%. But NOT telling them about contraception/STI prevention is hardly the way to prevent that from happening.

Celia Cyanide

12-30-2008, 09:19 AM

Just because they're taught about contraception, etc. doesn't mean it's going to help when they're in the heat of the moment and Joe forgot to pick up the protection...or Joe really doesn't like them and Jill really likes Joe.

No, it doesn't, but according to this article, they are more likely to then teens who make virginity promises and learn absinence only.

Zoombie

12-30-2008, 09:59 AM

Just to say, the Surgeon General in question was a woman, and I'm buying Condoms the instant me and my girlfriend are reunited from our family vacation induced separation.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

maestrowork

12-30-2008, 10:32 AM

Knowledge doesn't necessarily mean follow-through. But you're damn sure that without the knowledge there will absolutely be no follow-through. You can't force a horse to drink, but at least it needs to know where the water is.

Teach kids values, but also information about sex. Otherwise, we're just fooling ourselves.

Teleute

12-30-2008, 10:41 AM

Just because they're taught about contraception, etc. doesn't mean it's going to help when they're in the heat of the moment and Joe forgot to pick up the protection...or Joe really doesn't like them and Jill really likes Joe.

Just because someone is taught good defensive driving skills doesn't mean they'll use them. Is that a good reason to eliminate driver's ed?

Zoombie

12-30-2008, 10:43 AM

Also, ain't there spermicides, pills, and other things that require less skill than working your doodle into a plastic thingy?

maestrowork

12-30-2008, 10:54 AM

Also, ain't there spermicides, pills, and other things that require less skill than working your doodle into a plastic thingy?

Latex. Sheesh, you'd think someone paid attention at sex ed... ;)

kuwisdelu

12-30-2008, 10:58 AM

Don't forget the lambskin ones!

maestrowork

12-30-2008, 10:59 AM

Don't forget the lambskin ones!

Or blood sausages.

Cassiopeia

12-30-2008, 11:01 AM

Also, ain't there spermicides, pills, and other things that require less skill than working your doodle into a plastic thingy?Birth control pills along with the morning after pill have side effects for the girl. And not all that pleasant either. I have never been able to use the pill. As for spermicides they aren't as effective as a condom and let's face, we aren't just worried about pregnancy here. The only thing that can stand between someone and an STD is a condom OR abstinence.

I am all for handing my 17 year old son a pack of condoms and telling him to keep them in his wallet. I'm not stupid, I figure he's around girls all the time.

And people can jump on me but there's a trend in our neck of the woods for a girl who feels jilted once her bf and her break up to claim he date raped her. So I told my son he best keep it zipped and not risk being thrown in jail cos some teenage b*tch wants revenge.

Zoombie

12-30-2008, 11:22 AM

Ugh. That date rape thing sickens me.

There are people who *actually* get date raped, and you using it to get revenge profains your entire gender, and in fact, the human species.

Mythical Tiger

12-30-2008, 11:49 AM

Captshady

12-30-2008, 06:15 PM

Birth control pills along with the morning after pill have side effects for the girl. And not all that pleasant either. I have never been able to use the pill. As for spermicides they aren't as effective as a condom and let's face, we aren't just worried about pregnancy here. The only thing that can stand between someone and an STD is a condom OR abstinence.

I am all for handing my 17 year old son a pack of condoms and telling him to keep them in his wallet. I'm not stupid, I figure he's around girls all the time.

And people can jump on me but there's a trend in our neck of the woods for a girl who feels jilted once her bf and her break up to claim he date raped her. So I told my son he best keep it zipped and not risk being thrown in jail cos some teenage b*tch wants revenge.

Beyond that, underage girls are getting into adult clubs with fake ID's and having sex with men. A guy I worked with was 22, met a 16 yr old that claimed to be 19 at a 21 and over club. They had consensual sex, he went to jail and will forever be labeled as a sex offender.

astonwest

12-30-2008, 06:30 PM

Just because someone is taught good defensive driving skills doesn't mean they'll use them. Is that a good reason to eliminate driver's ed?
I never took driver's ed, and I have tremendous defensive driving skills. How is that possible?

astonwest

12-30-2008, 06:32 PM

However, if they're in the heat of the moment and actually possess the knowledge about what a condom is, how to use it, what can happen if they don't, etc., they stand a better chance of actually USING it. A couple of kids who don't even know what condoms ARE - or the consequences of not using them - sure as hell aren't going to use them.
See, you're confusing my belief that parents should be teaching kids with them not being taught at all.

In addition to giving adults sex ed classes, we should also give parents classes on what can possibly happen once their kids have kids of their own...
:)

astonwest

12-30-2008, 06:32 PM

Also, ain't there spermicides, pills, and other things that require less skill than working your doodle into a plastic thingy?
Sex ed didn't teach you about the dangers outside of pregnancy? Sigh...

Fox The Cave

12-30-2008, 06:33 PM

Whazzat? Girls my age don't keep virginity pledges?

I have absolutely no problem with that.

scarletpeaches

12-30-2008, 06:35 PM

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii53/doriangrayspictures/Funnies/Abstinence.jpg

thethinker42

12-30-2008, 06:41 PM

*very quickly scoots away from scarletpeaches to avoid any stray lightning bolts...*

truelyana

12-30-2008, 06:46 PM

I never kept mine neither. My pledge was to wait and have sex until I met someone whom I loved. I only become aware of sex and the impact it was having on every teenage girl at school, after I was 16. Lost virginity a day before 18th Birthday to someone who loved me, but I never felt the same way. My parents never taught me about sex neither, and for most part my sexual revolution years were kept behind closed doors.

rugcat

12-30-2008, 08:06 PM

See, you're confusing my belief that parents should be teaching kids with them not being taught at all.

In addition to giving adults sex ed classes, we should also give parents classes on what can possibly happen once their kids have kids of their own...
:)I think the problem with that view is that it assumes all parents are engaged with their kids, knowledgeable, and rational. That's not just not the world we live in. (Although I assume you're not entirely serious.)

Are we going to mandate sex ed classes for parents? Force them to teach their kids about sex? Force them to give a damn about their kids when they don't?

I can't see any justification in withholding information from kids under the guise of morality. Teach your kids your own views on morality at home -- that's a parent's job. It's the school's job to supply accurate information. It's the kid's job to learn, or not.

Tirjasdyn

12-30-2008, 08:10 PM

Beyond that, underage girls are getting into adult clubs with fake ID's and having sex with men. A guy I worked with was 22, met a 16 yr old that claimed to be 19 at a 21 and over club. They had consensual sex, he went to jail and will forever be labeled as a sex offender.

Hey now...underage girls with fake ids is why I'm alive today.

but back then they just forced you to marry the gal.

Funny story...this Sunday with my parents in town we were playing Imaginiff. You role the dice and land on someone's name who is playing. You then read the question with the person as the subject. My mother landed on me and asked the question...how far did the first kiss of Michelle's parents go. The choices were the lips, the neck, the cheek or the tonsuls. My parents chose the lips trying to be nice. Us evil children, knowing full well how their marriage got started chose tonsuls and then won the round. :D

Celia Cyanide

12-30-2008, 08:14 PM

I never took driver's ed, and I have tremendous defensive driving skills. How is that possible?

Um...that doesn't really answer the question at all. The point was, we don't stop teaching driver's ed because someone might not use the skills they learn from it.

Celia Cyanide

12-30-2008, 08:18 PM

I can't see any justification in withholding information from kids under the guise of morality. Teach your kids your own views on morality at home -- that's a parent's job. It's the school's job to supply accurate information. It's the kid's job to learn, or not.

Indeed. Morality is present in every subject in school. It is the parents responsibility to teach their children morality, and how it relates to what they learn in school. As far as information itself, it's no more the parent's responsibility to teach sex ed than it is to teach them who discovered America or why The Grapes Of Wrath is an important book.

James81

12-30-2008, 08:45 PM

Is anybody really shocked by this?

I mean, really, our bodies start preparing us to be sexual beings as early as 12 and 13. it's no surprise that people are having sex by the time they are in their mid to late teens.

astonwest

12-31-2008, 01:13 AM

Are we going to mandate sex ed classes for parents? Force them to teach their kids about sex? Force them to give a damn about their kids when they don't?

We already hold parents accountable for many of the mistakes their children make.
Give it time...they could and might just implement all of the above.

I can't see any justification in withholding information from kids under the guise of morality. Teach your kids your own views on morality at home -- that's a parent's job. It's the school's job to supply accurate information. It's the kid's job to learn, or not.Unless you're the federal government, in which case it's the school's job to make sure the kids learn what you tell them to.

That being said...

What about parents who don't want their kids to be taught about sex by the school?

Zoombie

12-31-2008, 01:16 AM

Its better to remove one poor kid from the class than a whole class from the entire program.

astonwest

12-31-2008, 01:18 AM

Zoombie

12-31-2008, 01:20 AM

At least I know that oral sex doesn't cause pregnancy, unlike one girl I met at my college.

rugcat

12-31-2008, 01:40 AM

What about parents who don't want their kids to be taught about sex by the school? Most schools have an opt out clause,which imo is a total cop out. Public education is an important component in keeping our nation and our democratic system strong. It's not up to parents to dictate what should and should not be taught.

We run into this same question when it comes to parents who don't want their kids to be taught about evolution. Or the parents who don't want their kids taught that all races are equal. They are saying, in effect, I want the schools to teach my kids, but only about things I approve of.

As for the effectiveness of sex ed, the point is to give kids accurate information. How they will or won't make use of it is outside the schools control. Though as the OP noted, the abstinence only programs seem to fare worse when compared to comprehensive sex ed.

If you feel that strongly, home school your kids.

kuwisdelu

12-31-2008, 01:57 AM

Most schools have an opt out clause,which imo is a total cop out. Public education is an important component in keeping our nation and our democratic system strong. It's not up to parents to dictate what should and should not be taught.

We run into this same question when it comes to parents who don't want their kids to be taught about evolution. Or the parents who don't want their kids taught that all races are equal. They are saying, in effect, I want the schools to teach my kids, but only about things I approve of.

As for the effectiveness of sex ed, the point is to give kids accurate information. How they will or won't make use of it is outside the schools control. Though as the OP noted, the abstinence only programs seem to fare worse when compared to comprehensive sex ed.

If you feel that strongly, home school your kids.

I have to agree.

What if a parent decided "I don't want my child to learn algebra. It's immoral. It's just not appropriate for that age. He's not ready for it.""

Celia Cyanide

12-31-2008, 01:59 AM

I have to agree.

What if a parent decided "I don't want my child to learn algebra. It's immoral. It's just not appropriate for that age. He's not ready for it.""

I wish my ma had said that...

Jcomp

12-31-2008, 02:01 AM

Most schools have an opt out clause,which imo is a total cop out. Public education is an important component in keeping our nation and our democratic system strong. It's not up to parents to dictate what should and should not be taught.

We run into this same question when it comes to parents who don't want their kids to be taught about evolution. Or the parents who don't want their kids taught that all races are equal. They are saying, in effect, I want the schools to teach my kids, but only about things I approve of.

As for the effectiveness of sex ed, the point is to give kids accurate information. How they will or won't make use of it is outside the schools control. Though as the OP noted, the abstinence only programs seem to fare worse when compared to comprehensive sex ed.

If you feel that strongly, home school your kids.

Would sex ed a required course or an elective? Or would it be rolled into another elective course like Sociology or Health or something?

Celia Cyanide

12-31-2008, 02:09 AM

One thing I'd like to point out, but you assume that the sex ed classes in question are going to be useful. I don't know how many of you remember your sex ed classes from school, those who had them, but ours were filled with teens in puberty, where talk of genitalia gathered a lot of snickers, jokes, and snide remarks.

Thinking that these young minds are going to glean information from what they're taught......hmmmm.

Oh well.

Kids make snide remarks and snicker when such topics are discussed because they're maybe a little embarassed, and don't know enough about it yet. It's no reason to suggest they won't glean any information. I remember that in my fifth grade class, when we were being taught about inappropriate touching, there was a lot of giggling. That certainly doesn't mean that kids should never be taught about how to handle bad touch, and what to do about it, or they they won't benefit from learning these things.

scarletpeaches

12-31-2008, 03:49 AM

At least I know that oral sex doesn't cause pregnancy, unlike one girl I met at my college.

You'll know you've got a really high sperm count if your girl has to chew before she swallows.

thethinker42

12-31-2008, 05:38 AM

One thing I'd like to point out, but you assume that the sex ed classes in question are going to be useful. I don't know how many of you remember your sex ed classes from school, those who had them, but ours were filled with teens in puberty, where talk of genitalia gathered a lot of snickers, jokes, and snide remarks.

Thinking that these young minds are going to glean information from what they're taught......hmmmm.

Oh well.

You never learned anything from a conversation that wasn't 100% serious?

For what it's worth, in my classes, we started out snickering and such, but eventually the novelty wore off enough that we could have serious discussions. And quite honestly, a few larger-than-life photos of the effects of STI's was enough to make most of us shut up and pay attention.

Even amidst the joking and snickering, if at least some of the kids pick up some of the information, it's worth it.

Captshady

12-31-2008, 05:48 AM

I have to agree.

What if a parent decided "I don't want my child to learn algebra. It's immoral. It's just not appropriate for that age. He's not ready for it.""

That should be their right. Attitudes about sex are different than algebra. I want to make damned sure that my daughter knows that it's not something to be ashamed of, but it's a special exchange between loving couples, NOT something to give out to just anyone. I can't be sure that a teacher will tell her that, so I want to be able to reach my child BEFORE any instruction happens, AND know the curriculum and details of what will be taught.

Some other parent should have the right to teach their children about sex, their way, for the same reason religion shouldn't be taught in a public school, the same way morality shouldn't be dictated ... who's morality will be enforced?

kuwisdelu

12-31-2008, 06:26 AM

Attitudes about sex are different than algebra. I want to make damned sure that my daughter knows that it's not something to be ashamed of, but it's a special exchange between loving couples, NOT something to give out to just anyone. I can't be sure that a teacher will tell her that, so I want to be able to reach my child BEFORE any instruction happens, AND know the curriculum and details of what will be taught.

Some other parent should have the right to teach their children about sex, their way, for the same reason religion shouldn't be taught in a public school, the same way morality shouldn't be dictated ... who's morality will be enforced?

The mistake there is assuming sex education necessarily has anything to do with morality.

Teaching kids about sex and providing information about how pregnancy, contraception, protection, and std's work has nothing to do with morals. It's information, plain and simple. Parents still have the right to teach their kids about sex all they like.

Like I said, it's like saying algebra is immoral. Information can't be moral or immoral. It's information.

Captshady

12-31-2008, 06:30 AM

The mistake there is assuming sex education necessarily has anything to do with morality.

Teaching kids about sex and providing information about how pregnancy, contraception, protection, and std's work has nothing to do with morals.

Limited to that, sure ... for ME. It might not be fine for others, unless "love" and "committment" enter the picture.

Information can't be moral or immoral. It's information.

Some might say a porn is information, and some is even marketed as such. Should 14 yr olds see porn? Be given the tips of giving a better blow job? How is that not information?

thethinker42

12-31-2008, 06:42 AM

Limited to that, sure ... for ME. It might not be fine for others, unless "love" and "committment" enter the picture.

Love and commitment are up to the parents. Schools can - and should - teach the facts, make sure kids have enough information to keep themselves safe, etc.

Some might say a porn is information, and some is even marketed as such. Should 14 yr olds see porn? Be given the tips of giving a better blow job? How is that not information?Yes, some porn is marketed as "real sex". I worked for a company that produced such. It's not intended as educational material for kids, though, it's intended to be realistic so that ADULTS can relate to it better than the more phony stuff that's out there. Big difference.

We're talking about educating kids about the logistics and risks of sex, not the "how-to" and all of that. I honestly don't see how the two are even comparable. I absolutely want schools saying "if you have sex, the possible physical consequences are X, Y, and Z." How is that even remotely comparable to "If you want to get your boyfriend off, try A, B, and C."?

ETA: I re-read that and realized you were responding to kuwi's "information is not moral, it just is", but I still agree with him. Information about WHAT SEX IS and what the risks are has nothing at all to do with morality.

kuwisdelu

12-31-2008, 06:44 AM

Limited to that, sure ... for ME. It might not be fine for others, unless "love" and "committment" enter the picture.

You'll need to elaborate a bit more on this for me to understand what you mean. After all, some people don't want evolution being taught. Should we take it out of classrooms because of those objections? What if I object to Newtonian mechanics from a Special Relativity standpoint and refuse to allow my child taught Newtonian mechanics and must be introduced to Special Relativity first?

Some might say a porn is information, and some is even marketed as such. Should 14 yr olds see porn? Be given the tips of giving a better blow job? How is that not information?

Well, for one, if you're taking tips from porn, stop right now. Porn is hardly information. It's acting.

I didn't say students should be taught all the knowledge out there. That would just be silly; there's not enough time. You have to pick and choose the best things to teach. I just said information isn't inherently moral or immoral. Learning a good blowjob, while worthwhile, is probably best left to other venues.

Now teaching about pregnancy and conception from a biological perspective? Sure. Even the use of educational, scientific videos? Fine.

Cyia

12-31-2008, 06:50 AM

At least I know that oral sex doesn't cause pregnancy, unlike one girl I met at my college.

Oh. My. God. :Wha:

Our "sex ed" film featured some broadway actress who was in Annie. (Literally; it was filmed backstage as she warned the kids that their time was almost up.) There's nothing like a girl with a bad dye job telling you the particulars of human reproduction (or narrating the action from an internally implanted camera.)

kuwisdelu

12-31-2008, 06:52 AM

My favorite was the "guess the std" slide show.

We tried "syphilis" for each picture until we were right.

For the House lovers out there, syphilis is the lupus of std slide shows.

scarletpeaches

12-31-2008, 06:53 AM

This thread reminds me of a story a fellow AWer told me once...

Cyia

12-31-2008, 06:56 AM

We didn't get a slide show.

thethinker42

12-31-2008, 06:58 AM

My favorite was the "guess the std" slide show.

We tried "syphilis" for each picture until we were right.

For the House lovers out there, syphilis is the lupus of std slide shows.

LMAO @ the "House" reference.

We had that same slide show. *shudder* I have never...NEVER...been able to look at cauliflower the same again...

James81

12-31-2008, 07:20 AM

That should be their right. Attitudes about sex are different than algebra. I want to make damned sure that my daughter knows that it's not something to be ashamed of, but it's a special exchange between loving couples, NOT something to give out to just anyone. I can't be sure that a teacher will tell her that, so I want to be able to reach my child BEFORE any instruction happens, AND know the curriculum and details of what will be taught.

Some other parent should have the right to teach their children about sex, their way, for the same reason religion shouldn't be taught in a public school, the same way morality shouldn't be dictated ... who's morality will be enforced?

This is why you, as a parent, need to keep in the loop about what your children are learning in schools. Yeah, you can't stop the schools from teaching something you don't want them to teach, but you can pull your kid aside and take responsibility for educating them the way YOU see fit, and then allowing them to make up their own minds what they believe.

Parents make the mistake in relying on the school to teach their kids everything and trying to ramrod force their views into the school system instead of taking the personal responsibility to sit down with their kids, go through their homework with them, and open up a line of communication with them about what they are learning.

C.bronco

12-31-2008, 07:22 AM

Hormones are a many splendored thing! Put me in the "I am not shocked" camp.

maestrowork

12-31-2008, 07:54 AM

I'll say this again (in case you missed it the first time around):

Teach your kids morals and values. But for God's sake, arm them with CORRECT information as well.

God forbid we don't need the whole "masturbation will make you blind" nonsense, do we?

Cyia

12-31-2008, 07:59 AM

thethinker42

12-31-2008, 08:01 AM

rugcat

12-31-2008, 08:14 AM

God forbid we don't need the whole "masturbation will make you blind" nonsense, do we?Could you make your font bigger, please? I'm having trouble reading it.

Zoombie

12-31-2008, 10:34 AM

You know...that DOES explain why I needed glasses about the time I was 12...

James81

12-31-2008, 10:41 AM

You know...that DOES explain why I needed glasses about the time I was 12...

I have decent vision, but I can barely type this because of all the hair on my palms.

thethinker42

12-31-2008, 11:01 AM

Pfft. You're all a bunch of perverts. My perfect 20/20 vision is commentary of just how pure and innocent I am. No glasses here.

*turns away to adjust contact lens*

Don

12-31-2008, 03:11 PM

I have decent vision, but I can barely type this because of all the hair on my palms.
No hair on my palms, but I think that's because of the warts.

scarletpeaches

12-31-2008, 03:28 PM

donroc

12-31-2008, 04:29 PM

In college we found a book published in the 1890s titled Vitalogy, which had photos of depraved appearing males (bodies wasting away, heavy dark suitcases under the eyes) who were used as examples of those who wallowed in "the secret vice" -- but we found no evidence of hair growing on the palms of hands. :rolleyes:

astonwest

12-31-2008, 05:20 PM

At least I know that oral sex doesn't cause pregnancy, unlike one girl I met at my college.
*headdesk*

Celia Cyanide

12-31-2008, 05:37 PM

Captshady

12-31-2008, 05:50 PM

You can do that, even if sex ed is taught in schools, no?

Yes. But giving a school carte blanche in this arena? Hell fuckin' no. I'm all for teaching how the reproductive system works, and the idea of STD's (they don't need graphic fricken pictures), although this is one I'd rather handle myself as well. I want to know the specific curriculum and make sure that it's handled with care. Given that history, government, and economics can be taught subjectively - and they are - why am I to trust what the school board says is acceptable, and then leave it in the hands of some free love wiccan that promotes putting out to every tom dick and harry? I want my kids to know MY view of intimacy, and work from there to form their own opinion. It's too easy to take a teacher's word as fact, and the only fact.

scarletpeaches

12-31-2008, 05:54 PM

...leave it in the hands of some free love wiccan that promotes putting out to every tom dick and harry?

Yes, because every Wiccan is a whore, yes?

I'm a member of organised religion. Christianity, or a branch thereof. I don't believe in the Wiccan...religion? Faith? I don't know what one should call it. But I do take offence at an entire group of people being labelled in that way.

Not that there's anything wrong with free love. If that's how you roll.

But your disparaging tone screams out from your words.

I want my kids to know MY view of intimacy, and work from there to form their own opinion.

Yes; how dare the teachers brainwash your kids when you want to do it for them?

It's too easy to take a teacher's word as fact...

Or a parent's.

thethinker42

12-31-2008, 05:56 PM

...then leave it in the hands of some free love wiccan that promotes putting out to every tom dick and harry?

I think that's more than a little disrespectful towards Wiccans. Your ignorance is showing, Captain, and your credibility in this argument just tanked BIG time.

I want my kids to know MY view of intimacy, and work from there to form their own opinion. It's too easy to take a teacher's word as fact, and the only fact.

The same could be said about parents. It's way too easy to take a parent's word as fact and only fact...when it comes to sex, religion, or damn near anything else.

ETA that the eerie similarity between scarletpeaches' post and mine is a really disturbing coincidence.

Captshady

12-31-2008, 06:01 PM

Yes, because every Wiccan is a whore, yes?

I'm a member of organised religion. Christianity, or a branch thereof. I don't believe in the Wiccan...religion? Faith? I don't know what one should call it. But I do take offence at an entire group of people being labelled in that way.

I was showing instead of telling; painting a picture. I don't know all Wiccans, so I didn't label an entire group, much like your attempt to label me.

Not that there's anything wrong with free love. If that's how you roll.

Nothing wrong with it at all, so long as you're an adult, and not an impressionable teenager.

But your disparaging tone screams out from your words.

As do yours.

Yes; how dare the teachers brainwash your kids when you want to do it for them?

Did the teacher decide to HAVE children? Is she clothing and feeding MY child? Has she signed on to raise them? When did that become the teacher's job?

Or a parent's.

And because of that, you have the right to TELL ME how to raise them?

thethinker42

12-31-2008, 06:03 PM

I was showing instead of telling; painting a picture. I don't know all Wiccans, so I didn't label an entire group, much like your attempt to label me.

Then why bring Wicca into it at all?

scarletpeaches

12-31-2008, 06:03 PM

...not an impressionable teenager.

:eek:

And because of that, you have the right to TELL ME how to raise them?

Uh, no...because I don't really care about you or your family beyond any discussion we have on AW.

Captshady

12-31-2008, 06:04 PM

I think that's more than a little disrespectful towards Wiccans. Your ignorance is showing, Captain, and your credibility in this argument just tanked BIG time.

Yeah .. cause y'know, conservative republicans LOVE to preach free love and dancing naked under the moonlight. It was partially in jest, but I'm sorry ... the free love attitude belongs (albeit no solely) to specific stereotypes. God forbid anyone point those out, lest they be labeled. The only acceptable hate is towards fatties and smokers. Label them all you want, huh?

The same could be said about parents. It's way too easy to take a parent's word as fact and only fact...when it comes to sex, religion, or damn near anything else.

Dreadfully sorry, but it's the right of the parent to raise their kids, and control their education through the democratic process.

Captshady

12-31-2008, 06:05 PM

:eek:

Uh, no...because I don't really care about you or your family beyond any discussion we have on AW.

Then you admit that your "or a parent" remark was solely based on your feelings toward me, and not the discussion at hand?

scarletpeaches

12-31-2008, 06:06 PM

No. I don't.

I was making the point that anyone - parent, teacher, whoever - can be wrong. Giving birth to or siring another person does not make one any more infallible than the Pope.

So please, don't put words in my mouth. I'm able to speak for myself without any outside help.

Captshady

12-31-2008, 06:08 PM

No. I don't.

I was making the point that anyone - parent, teacher, whoever - can be wrong. Giving birth to or siring another person does not make one any more infallible than the Pope.

Yet you're more interested in demanding that my children be taught sex ed within the confines of the morality of the teacher, than the parent.

scarletpeaches

12-31-2008, 06:09 PM

Perhaps you could show where I demanded that your kids be taught sex ed according to their teacher's morality?

thethinker42

12-31-2008, 06:10 PM

Yeah .. cause y'know, conservative republicans LOVE to preach free love and dancing naked under the moonlight. It was partially in jest, but I'm sorry ... the free love attitude belongs (albeit no solely) to specific stereotypes.

So you're basing your worries on stereotypes?

I realize it was in jest, but since you're basically saying that you're better qualified to educate your kids about sex than the school system, making completely random bullshit generalizations about such things doesn't do a hell of a lot for your credibility.

God forbid anyone point those out, lest they be labeled. The only acceptable hate is towards fatties and smokers. Label them all you want, huh?

What's that smell? Oh, must be all those red herrings...

Dreadfully sorry, but it's the right of the parent to raise their kids, and control their education through the democratic process.

I never said it wasn't. I think it's the responsibility of parents to raise and educate their kids, a responsibility at which MANY fail miserably. However, I have yet to see a valid argument for NOT teaching kids about sex in schools.

Captshady

12-31-2008, 06:11 PM

Perhaps you could show where I demanded that your kids be taught sex ed according to their teacher's morality?

It's a part of the freakin discussion. I guess you just wanted to chime and express you dislike for my choice of using a Wiccan in my example, place a label on me, and leave? Do you have an opinion within what the current discussion was?

scarletpeaches

12-31-2008, 06:13 PM

Part of the discussion?

Well. When you decide to read what I say rather than make up the meaning behind my words, let me know.

You might also be interested to know I have as much right to post in this thread as anyone else on AW.

However, I deeply, sincerely apologise for deviating from your decided topic of discussion and promise never to post again without running my opinions past you first.

Captshady

12-31-2008, 06:15 PM

scarletpeaches

12-31-2008, 06:15 PM

Wow. I'm sure glad I have you around to put me right.

Captshady

12-31-2008, 06:19 PM

Wow. I'm sure glad I have you around to put me right.

It'd take a lot more than me sweety.

Cyia

12-31-2008, 06:58 PM

Good grief. Most kids - regardless of parental involvement - see more detail on television than they do in a "sex ed" movie. Unless you're willing to sit down and debunk - or reinforce - what they've seen and heard, they NEED an educator providing at least statistical information.

Like I said, we didn't have the graphic filmstrips of specific STD's, but that wouldn't have been a bad thing. Those images could at least show a side of unprotected sex they don't get from romantic movies.

The ONLY view kids in households where sex isn't discussed get is what they see on TV, read in magazines or books, and hear about from their friends. And if you think your teenage daughters aren't talking sex with their friends, you're deluding yourself. They're getting every detail they can soak up.

Would you rather have a legitimate resource available to them that can actually answer their questions or just let them continue to think that prime time is a fair representation of the risks of unprotected sex?

Captshady

12-31-2008, 07:11 PM

Cyia, we're arguing the details. I NEVER said that I didn't want sex discussed with my children.

rugcat

12-31-2008, 08:21 PM

Captshady

12-31-2008, 08:28 PM

I think Captshady's view goes deeper than the specifics on sex ed, although that can be one of those hot button issues.

His view seems to be that ultimately is should be the parent's choice as to what is taught in school and how it's taught, not the state's. A parent should have the right of veto power over the school system, by virtue of the fact they are parents -- it's their kids, and the state has no business mandating how they are to be educated, esp when it runs counter to the parent's deeply held beliefs.

Personally, I couldn't disagree more. Establishing a curriculum is absolutely the job of the public education system, and trying to tailor it to each parent's beliefs, prejudices, and personal views as to what education is appropriate would lead to chaos.

Luckily, where I live, it's up to the discretion of the school board who have to take the opinions of the parents to heart, lest they not be re-elected.

You've pretty much summed up my opinion, except that additionally, sex is NOT algebra, and subject to far, far more opinions on the matter. Religion doesn't enter the picture with algebra, it does with sex. YOUR morality is NOT mine, and therefore, the details matter. If you're inclined to giving in to the morality of the majority, you're looking for holy wars, and losses of freedom.

Cyia

12-31-2008, 09:07 PM

I think Captshady's view goes deeper than the specifics on sex ed, although that can be one of those hot button issues.

His view seems to be that ultimately is should be the parent's choice as to what is taught in school and how it's taught, not the state's. A parent should have the right of veto power over the school system, by virtue of the fact they are parents -- it's their kids, and the state has no business mandating how they are to be educated, esp when it runs counter to the parent's deeply held beliefs.

Personally, I couldn't disagree more. Establishing a curriculum is absolutely the job of the public education system, and trying to tailor it to each parent's beliefs, prejudices, and personal views as to what education is appropriate would lead to chaos.

I couldn't agree more. I remember one of our teachers having a student whose father was livid that his son would know more than he did by the end of the school year. He actually came up to the school and demanded that they stop teaching him when he got to a certain level. Needless to say, they didn't comply.

If you don't like what the state teaches your children, then they should be in home school or private school - most of them will accommodate people who can't pay full tuition if it's a religious school.

And school boards have to work with state approved curriculums - no matter who elects them.

ETA-- sex ed doesn't teach anything beyond the biology of sex and reproduciton. It's a health issue, not a moral one.

Captshady

12-31-2008, 09:10 PM

Bravo

12-31-2008, 09:12 PM

there was a very interesting article in the new yorker called red sex, blue sex that i highly recommend people read. here's a particularly relevant segment:

Yet, according to the sociologists Peter Bearman, of Columbia University, and Hannah Brückner, of Yale, communities with high rates of pledging also have high rates of S.T.D.s. This could be because more teens pledge in communities where they perceive more danger from sex (in which case the pledge is doing some good); or it could be because fewer people in these communities use condoms when they break the pledge.

Bearman and Brückner have also identified a peculiar dilemma: in some schools, if too many teens pledge, the effort basically collapses. Pledgers apparently gather strength from the sense that they are an embattled minority; once their numbers exceed thirty per cent, and proclaimed chastity becomes the norm, that special identity is lost. With such a fragile formula, it’s hard to imagine how educators can ever get it right: once the self-proclaimed virgin clique hits the thirty-one-per-cent mark, suddenly it’s Sodom and Gomorrah.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot

kuwisdelu

12-31-2008, 09:17 PM

So you'd have nothing to say, if your kids were taught opposite of your views to 1) abortion? 2) economics? 3) smoking? 4) drugs? 5) murder? By God, let the state handle it, those things SHOULD be taught, so screw it, I don't care how they go about it.

There are facts about all of those that are true regardless on your views toward them.

If the teacher entered anything into the discussion outside those facts and tried to impose a particular belief upon students, I would inform the school of that teacher's behavior, expect reprimand, and inform my child of my own beliefs and reiterate what the facts are (separate from ANY beliefs) so he or she could make up his or her own mind. That does NOT mean I would try to remove the subject from the curriculum just because of it.

rugcat

12-31-2008, 09:18 PM

Luckily, where I live, it's up to the discretion of the school board who have to take the opinions of the parents to heart, lest they not be re-elected.Parents absolutely should have input. The devil, as always, is in the details -- should they have input, some control, total control, no say at all?

There are no perfect answers. But refusing to supply information about contraception, for example, because a parent doesn't wish their child to know about such things, is not defensible.

If a sex ed class taught that sexual experimentation between teens was a healthy and desirable option, that goes beyond information into value judgement. I can see why parents might feel that inappropriate.

If a sex ed class taught that homosexual relationships were unnatural and unthinkable, that again is inappropriate value based teaching.

But I don't see that either of those things are being taught in sex ed.

Severian

12-31-2008, 09:19 PM

my children be taught sex ed within the confines of the morality of the teacher, than the parent.

To be fair, a teacher's morality doesnt come into the equation as a teacher will only be outlining pre-approved views rather than their own moral views. They dont control what school management says is ok to teach.

MattW

12-31-2008, 09:22 PM

The greater good of public health is served by sex education - schools teach it to cut down on the spread of disease. Choosing to go against the welfare of the people is not a legal position because it is your "belief."

You can, however, give your kids your beliefs in whatever way you desire, even by contradicting whatever is taught in schools. Do not force your morals onto other people's children by denying any and all access to sex ed.

Celia Cyanide

12-31-2008, 09:35 PM

So you'd have nothing to say, if your kids were taught opposite of your views to 1) abortion? 2) economics? 3) smoking? 4) drugs? 5) murder? By God, let the state handle it, those things SHOULD be taught, so screw it, I don't care how they go about it.

They are not teaching "views." They are teaching facts. And no matter what they teach, there is nothing stopping you from teaching your kids what you think they should know.

Cyia

12-31-2008, 09:35 PM

So you'd have nothing to say, if your kids were taught opposite of your views to 1) abortion? 2) economics? 3) smoking? 4) drugs? 5) murder? By God, let the state handle it, those things SHOULD be taught, so screw it, I don't care how they go about it.

As I said, Sex - ed is a biological study, not a how to manual.

1. Abortion isn't taught in schools that I know of, except in the context of legal history. (Roe v. Wade)

2. Economics is a class taught in every American high school and it's based on the system currently in place. (Invisble hand and all that if I remember correctly). I'm not sure what moral objection there is here, but I know we weren't getting anything more than basic business ethics for the one chapter covering that.

3. Schools teach smoking leads to lung cancer - the same thing you can read on the side of a package. They don't deny the existence of cigarettes, and they do enforce the legal age requirements. Again, this is a matter of biology and legality.

4. Just Say No. Schools provide basic information on the effects of drugs on the human body. They tell their students they are illegal. They call the police if drugs are found on campus.

5. I don't of any school that teaches murder. Sure they may study the more famous ones in history, but they certainly don't advocate the act. Again, this is a legal matter.

Schools are there to impart information, not morality. And in more recent years, they're there to undo the damage done when kids start looking for answers on-line and find incorrect information. It has nothing to do with morality - your kids should already know how you feel on these subjects - it has to do with making them capable adults who can make their own decisions when they're at a legal age to do so.

scarletpeaches

12-31-2008, 09:41 PM

They are not teaching "views." They are teaching facts. And no matter what they teach, there is nothing stopping you from teaching your kids what you think they should know.

Unless, of course, one's belief system is so rickety one contrary opinion could bring it all crashing down?

Christine N.

12-31-2008, 10:55 PM

So you'd have nothing to say, if your kids were taught opposite of your views to 1) abortion? 2) economics? 3) smoking? 4) drugs? 5) murder? By God, let the state handle it, those things SHOULD be taught, so screw it, I don't care how they go about it.

No, but perhaps my child and I could discuss how my views then differed from the ones taught in school and why. And around here the younger kids have DARE class as part of Health - where the police come in and talk about drugs and drug use, even showing slides of paraphenalia and shots of people who have used. They teach consequences to actions. One officer I was with one day liked to tell horrific stories about drug users that he came across.

Parents need to take what the school teaches (which is really basic biology) and TALK ABOUT IT. I know, it's crazy, talking to your own children, right?

So perhaps it's neither and either/or issue, but a BOTH issue.

Captshady

12-31-2008, 11:12 PM

They are not teaching "views." They are teaching facts. And no matter what they teach, there is nothing stopping you from teaching your kids what you think they should know.

When did this happen? My own personal experiences have told me otherwise, time and time again. With things far less complicated than sex.

To be fair, a teacher's morality doesnt come into the equation as a teacher will only be outlining pre-approved views rather than their own moral views. They dont control what school management says is ok to teach.

Again, since when? I was told NOT to use my left hand when writing, because it was abnormal. I remember MY sex ed (it was called home and family living) told about how her hymen was all leathery and unpenetrable by the time she got married. I'm pretty damned sure "tell the students about when your hymen burst" wasn't part of the damned curriculum. Let alone how wonderful heavenly her first time was.

If a sex ed class taught that homosexual relationships were unnatural and unthinkable, that again is inappropriate value based teaching.

But I don't see that either of those things are being taught in sex ed.

I did. Along with aids being a homosexual and iv drug user's disease.

As I said, Sex - ed is a biological study, not a how to manual.

Only if handled delicately. I know more than one person that can attest to specific how to steps.

1. Abortion isn't taught in schools that I know of, except in the context of legal history. (Roe v. Wade)

Right, but the whole point is ... what if it was?

2. Economics is a class taught in every American high school and it's based on the system currently in place. (Invisble hand and all that if I remember correctly). I'm not sure what moral objection there is here, but I know we weren't getting anything more than basic business ethics for the one chapter covering that.

It's subjective. Were you taught that early settlers and quakers tried socialism, it failed miserably and the absolute fact as to why?? (They got lazy, and didn't produce quality product because they had no competition). Do you think it's a must mention when studying economics?

3. Schools teach smoking leads to lung cancer - the same thing you can read on the side of a package. They don't deny the existence of cigarettes, and they do enforce the legal age requirements. Again, this is a matter of biology and legality.

And would you like it if a teacher said, "OMG it's soooooooo enjoyable to smoke, but it's bad for you."? Were she reprimanded later for making that statement, do you think the damage could've already been done?

4. Just Say No. Schools provide basic information on the effects of drugs on the human body. They tell their students they are illegal. They call the police if drugs are found on campus.

Yeah, I remember when that came into effect when I was in H.S. I also remember my friend rolling a fatty and making a joke about it. I'm glad that now that they've been given this information that drug use has declined to near nothing propotions. Good thing we've had experts on top of this since 1980 that have found out specifically WHY drugs were being used and have been able to stop it. I'm sure it's that they've introduced drug education into schools. No damage done here!!

5. I don't of any school that teaches murder. Sure they may study the more famous ones in history, but they certainly don't advocate the act. Again, this is a legal matter.

What article specifically makes it criminal to be "pro murder"? What if a teacher said, "canabalism, like homosexuality is a lifestyle, and we shouldn't hamper anyone's lifestyle."

Schools are there to impart information, not morality.

Well too bad that's not the case.

It has nothing to do with morality - your kids should already know how you feel on these subjects - it has to do with making them capable adults who can make their own decisions when they're at a legal age to do so.

And there's no two books agreeing on the best way to go about that. Therefore, no concrete evidence on the best way to do it. Sex from a biological stand point is one thing. Beyond that, it should be up to the people that signed on to raise them, and none of the state's business.

Ciera_

12-31-2008, 11:25 PM

In my school, parents have to sign a consent form for us to be taught sex ed.
If the parents decide that their kid can't handle it, or that it's immoral, or whatever reason they may have, the kid will be yanked out of health class when the subject turns to sex ed. He/she will be among the VERY few, if not the only one, to be separated in this humiliating way. The kid will likely be made fun of, for one thing. But more importantly, IMHO, the parent is sending a message that they want to protect the child from something that the majority of kids are going to at least understand and be aware of. I really don't think they teach us anything that's even open to moral interpretation. They definitely don't encourage premarital sex in any way. They just give us facts and statistics and understanding, which more often than not will awaken us to the dangers of sex and scare the living sh*t out of some of us.
If you don't want your kid to be taught about sex in this neutral, purely educational way, how were you hoping they'd learn? You can tell them yourself, but you're going to have to cover all the same basics that the school will. (Or your child will be lacking some seriously important knowledge that they'll need in order to make educated, smart decisions.) Why not just build on what the school teaches them? Add your own moral beliefs about sex to the science of it that they learn in school. Tell them what's expected of them, now that they know what's going on.

In short, I just really, really want to advise against not signing that permission form. (If your child's school uses them). I've seen kids get pulled out of health class, and my heart goes out to them, because the sex ed. really isn't such a huge deal either way, but the name-calling and overall humiliation is.

-Ciera (who survived my school's curriculum so far without (many) ill side-affects)

bethany

12-31-2008, 11:40 PM

I think that there should be a standard, probably national curriculum of sex education that includes something besides the abstinance message. In my area, the health department comes around and speaks to 8th grade classes, but is not allowed to talk about birth control besides abstinance. I think they might get some basic biology in 9th grade health.

Sex ed would be informative for the kids who don't get education at home, and for the lucky ones with involved parents, it could be a starting point for discussions that are difficult to start.

Are there idiot teachers out there? Absolutely. I know someone whose 3rd grade student was told on November 5th, that President Baby-Killer had just gotten elected. My brother's Spanish teacher is always talking about how she went out and got drunk the night before and is hung over.

Personally as a parent (and educator) I trust the system, until I find out it isn't working. If my child had heard that baby-killer comment, I would've been up at that school the next day, and the superintendant would've heard from me. I would've said something about the drunk thing, too. I find that parents are often intimidated by teachers and won't make their feelings known (of course there are the other end of the spectrum people, too, but at least you know how they feel :))

It shouldn't be the parent's duty to police the school system, but principals ususally take parent comments pretty seriously- especially after there've been a few of them. I flunked my one and only student teacher. When it came down to filling out the paperwork, I had to admit, I would NOT want my children in this woman's class, and that she should not be around kids because she was an idiot. (the fact that her grammar was atrocious is another tale entirely).

I am very careful not to talk about my views on religion or politics with students. It just isn't relevant or appropriate. It's unfortunate that not everyone feels the same way. But I still think kids need sex ed, and when the time comes I would want my children to have the class.

Jcomp

12-31-2008, 11:46 PM

Would sex ed a required course or an elective? Or would it be rolled into another elective course like Sociology or Health or something?

I'm legitimately curious.

Celia Cyanide

01-01-2009, 12:11 AM

When did this happen? My own personal experiences have told me otherwise, time and time again. With things far less complicated than sex.

And what stopped you from teaching your kids, as a parent, what you wanted them to learn?

Zoombie

01-01-2009, 12:23 AM

This is a bit of a rant, but here I go!

Now, I'm racking my brain to try and remember what I learned from sex ed...hmm...I learned how pregnancy works, I learned about how AIDS worked and was spread (specifically, sharing needles and unprotected sex). It wasn't till later that I even *heard* that it was originally called the "gay" desiase.

Now, from the INTERNET, I learned all sorts of things, including a rather hilariously long list of sexual kinks, most of it in cartoons from Japan. Now, this stuff is as easy as a fake name, E-mail address or just something as simple as Bittorrent or Kazza to get!

So, even if you don't teach your kids about sex in sex ed, they're still going to see more than what you want them to see in magazines, television, the internet, novels. Yes, the first lurid sex scene I had seen in my entire life was in a NOVEL.

Now, unless you want to turn your house into a Control State, where the internet, tv, novels, movies, magazines and so on are all put through an extreme censor, your kids are still going to talk to kids who know more.

There is nothing, NOTHING, that can stop a determined kid from learning what they want. Now, a lot of the stuff floating out there is...well...flat wrong. That's why we NEED a standardized curriculum to lay down some solid FACTS to build future love and sexual relations on.

I mean, the amount of information I can grab with a simple google search on anything from ancient history to hentai (Japanese animated porn) is awe inspiring...but it is also laced with misinformation and outright lies.

Heck, I google searched for information about the playtpus and I found three websites that were jibbering about how the Earth is only 6,000 years old! And these were sites on the TOP of the search list.

So...with a combination of determined kids, a bucketful of research options (some of whom lead to "facts" that are just...wrong), and a laughably bad sex ed program...its no wonder that our teen pregnancy is through the roof.

I believe the government should only do five things: Protect us, build infrastructure, keep other governments from attacking us, provide a legal system, and teach us.

And, as this is SUPPOSED to be a country that separates church from state, we should teach nothing but scientific facts in our sex ed.

Cassiopeia

01-01-2009, 12:38 AM

Yeah .. cause y'know, conservative republicans LOVE to preach free love and dancing naked under the moonlight. It was partially in jest, but I'm sorry ... the free love attitude belongs (albeit no solely) to specific stereotypes. God forbid anyone point those out, lest they be labeled. The only acceptable hate is towards fatties and smokers. Label them all you want, huh?

Dreadfully sorry, but it's the right of the parent to raise their kids, and control their education through the democratic process.Hello Captshady, I just want to interrupt our regularly scheduled bickering session to clarify something a bit for you. In the above statement you are adding to your previous posts in which you refer to Wiccans. The bolded part is not true of very many Wiccans but rather a subgroup of them. And if I remember correctly and I'm quite sure I do, Hippies in the 60's were all about doing that.

For the record, not all Wiccans are equal and you are sterotyping a group of people that don't deserve it anymore than any other religious group. Yes SP they are a religious group and the majority of them are hard working, honest and viable contributors to society as a whole.

And I'll wager they also agree that they have the right to educate or have their children educated in the way they see most fit.

Cyia

01-01-2009, 01:36 AM

Captshady,

From your answers you must have been out of school for quite a while based on the "left" handed thing. They did that in the sixties and through part of the seventies - alot of times because right handed teachers didn't know how to teach "penmanship" to a left handed child. They couldn't figure out how to hold the pen or turn the page. (I know this because...*gasp*... I was taught in school)

And if that's what your sex ed teacher taught, then she was out of line and should have been reported. That's not what she was supposed to teach and you can't judge all classes by one teacher who didn't do her job. (I had a biology instructor in college who didn't believe in rubber gloves because she felt they made it more difficult to feel what you were doing... so she made us use bacteria and chemicals without them. This was neither normal nor right - and it DOESNT mean that all bio. labs in the country should be shut down)

"What if" isn't a point. It's an argument - and a weak one at that.

I honestly don't remember much of what I was taught in economics because it was BORING. Period.

A teacher who smokes (and yes we had them) is no more detrimental than watching a football player or actor who smokes. Believe me there are a lot more wanna be Collin Ferrell's out there than there are Mr. Teacherman's. I did however have a teacher who came to school for "Hippie Day" wearing a marijuana pouch and our Chem. teacher cussed like a sailor - ironically he was one... I still don't do either.

I'm glad that now that they've been given this information that drug use has declined to near nothing propotions. Good thing we've had experts on top of this since 1980 that have found out specifically WHY drugs were being used and have been able to stop it. I'm sure it's that they've introduced drug education into schools. No damage done here!!

This is EXACTLY why we need sex ed in schools. To give kids who are most likely going to have sex whether or not you know or approve the information they need to stay safe. They need to know how birth control works. They need to know the signs and symptoms of STD's. They need an informed resource to tell them that what they see in mass media doesn't give them the whole picture.

Canabalism is illegal... even when voluntary. No comparison.

Sex from a biological stand point is one thing. Beyond that, it should be up to the people that signed on to raise them, and none of the state's business.

Which is exactly what just about everyone who's responded to you has said - but until this statement you've argued the point.

And for the record. I'm Texan born and raised, went through K-12 grade in the public school system there and survived it with honors. Raised in a Evangelical Christian home by conservative parents.

Captshady

01-01-2009, 06:33 AM

Which is exactly what just about everyone who's responded to you has said - but until this statement you've argued the point.

No, I haven't. I've never argued against it. I've argued that it's different from algebra, and that personal opinion should NOT be a part of it. I've argued that there's a danger of personal opinion being injected into it, and therefore should NOT be treated like any other class. That's it.

Captshady

01-01-2009, 06:35 AM

Hello Captshady, I just want to interrupt our regularly scheduled bickering session to clarify something a bit for you. In the above statement you are adding to your previous posts in which you refer to Wiccans. The bolded part is not true of very many Wiccans but rather a subgroup of them. And if I remember correctly and I'm quite sure I do, Hippies in the 60's were all about doing that.

For the record, not all Wiccans are equal and you are sterotyping a group of people that don't deserve it anymore than any other religious group. Yes SP they are a religious group and the majority of them are hard working, honest and viable contributors to society as a whole.

And I'll wager they also agree that they have the right to educate or have their children educated in the way they see most fit.

I've dated a wiccan, I wasn't trying to paint anyone in a negative light, just trying to paint a picture. If I'd have said hippy, it would've been an open and shut case, I'm an over the top conservative christian (which I'm not) and be accused of it being about politics instead of how I legitimately feel about my kids and the possibilty of them being taught promiscuity over biology.

Monkey

01-01-2009, 07:10 AM

I'm not Wiccan, but I sure do love dancing naked. It's even better under moonlight. :D

Capt, I'm sorry you had an idiot for a teacher. I had a couple of idiot teachers, myself. The thing is, though, when it's not Home Economics or Family Living or whatever, and is an actual Sex Ed course, the teachers get handed a very specific curriculum and are told what they can and cannot say about it. Lots of parents share your concern and the school board knows it.

Usually, it's in their best interest to do as the parents wish. But when it comes to things that the kids really need to know--like evolution--or books that are important enough--like Animal Farm--the school board is put in a difficult situation. They have to keep the curriculum, but be very aware of (and careful not to step too heavily on the toes of) squeamish parents.

For many schools, Sex Ed is one of those issues. They try to placate nervous parents while providing at least a basic grounding in this very important area.

I agree that it's not like Algebra. There's a heck of a lot of people who don't use Algebra, and it's not hard to lead a perfectly healthy, productive life without it. On the other hand, only something like 2% of the population is asexual. The rest of us have an emotional and/or biological need for sex. That makes it damned important, and not something to be completely ignored in a well-rounded curriculum.

And whooo-boy would you hate my personal views on sex... :D

ETA: I just re-read my post, and I'd like to clarify: I used the words "squeamish" and "nervous", but I didn't mean to be derogatory with those descriptions. Some parents feel that way about the schools' choice of curriculum. I was one of those "squeamish" parents when my son was assigned to read the Holocaust novel "Night" in the eighth grade. It seemed just a little much...and it was. It made my son cry several nights in a row. I read it and talked about it with him (which didn't help much...I cried too) and I talked with his teacher, but in the end, I was glad that he'd read it. I just wish they'd waited until he was a wee bit older.

maestrowork

01-01-2009, 07:39 AM

A teacher's job is not to make the parents feel better about themselves or not nervous about talking to their kids about some real life issues, such as sex. A teacher's job is to give the students the right (and age-appropriate) information. Parents are adults -- and they should act like one, and not giggly fools who are too embarrassed and nervous to teach their own children the facts of life.

And sex ed does not teach or promote promiscuity. For cryin' out loud.

Christine N.

01-01-2009, 07:44 AM

Personally I think the whole "saving yourself for marriage" thing is just not as attainable as it used to be. People go on and on about how it's "God's will", etc...
What they forget is the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of virginity.

2000 years ago, if you lived to the ripe old age of 35, you were lucky. People GOT MARRIED at FIFTEEN YEARS OLD. Much closer to the present day, women were still getting married at the age of 18-20, on average. So yeah, there were a few years where you had to keep your pants on, but overall, by the time those hormones were kicking in and you figured out you wanted to do something with your fun parts, you were already married.

TODAY, we see people getting married later and later, puberty coming on earlier and earlier. Biology is a powerful force, and we're not marrying off our little darlings in middle school. So we NEED to teach them what's going on with their bodies. I NEVER, EVER had a teacher impose their morals on me during sex ed. It was strictly information, very sterile. Boys and girls were separated. We were even taught breast self-exams. We were taught physical consequences - pregnancy, STD's, AIDS (but back then it was still a triple-H disease: Hypos, Homos and Haitians). We were taught a bit about peer pressure, IIRC.

Any moral implications of having sex were left up to parents. We can dream that our kids are little darlings, but fact is there's going to be A LOT of time between when they hit puberty and when they get married or find a significant other. Some people can do it, and I applaud them. But forewarned is forearmed, and I'm a pragmatist.

Cyia

01-01-2009, 07:49 AM

No, I haven't. I've never argued against it. I've argued that it's different from algebra, and that personal opinion should NOT be a part of it. I've argued that there's a danger of personal opinion being injected into it, and therefore should NOT be treated like any other class. That's it.

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to follow your logic. How is personal opinion a part of Algebra? Because if you're saying there's personal opinions in every class (algebra being the one singled out) and sex-ed shouldn't involve personal opinions.... I'm lost.

Algebra is pretty concrete. Either an equation works or it doesn't.

Captshady

01-01-2009, 09:32 AM

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to follow your logic. How is personal opinion a part of Algebra? Because if you're saying there's personal opinions in every class (algebra being the one singled out) and sex-ed shouldn't involve personal opinions.... I'm lost.

You'd have to read the whole thread. Now I see why/how you saw/think that I was arguing something that I wasn't.

Algebra is pretty concrete. Either an equation works or it doesn't.

It was brought up that sex ed is exactly like algebra, and I was saying it wasn't.

astonwest

01-01-2009, 09:33 AM

For those trying to keep score at home...

What if a parent decided "I don't want my child to learn algebra. It's immoral. It's just not appropriate for that age. He's not ready for it.""

That should be their right. Attitudes about sex are different than algebra. I want to make damned sure that my daughter knows that it's not something to be ashamed of, but it's a special exchange between loving couples, NOT something to give out to just anyone. I can't be sure that a teacher will tell her that, so I want to be able to reach my child BEFORE any instruction happens, AND know the curriculum and details of what will be taught.

You've pretty much summed up my opinion, except that additionally, sex is NOT algebra, and subject to far, far more opinions on the matter. Religion doesn't enter the picture with algebra, it does with sex. YOUR morality is NOT mine, and therefore, the details matter. If you're inclined to giving in to the morality of the majority, you're looking for holy wars, and losses of freedom.

Ciera_

01-01-2009, 10:02 AM

Thanks, Aston.:popcorn: That helps.

Zoombie

01-01-2009, 10:06 AM

Yeah, threads get confusing sometimes...

Dommo

01-01-2009, 10:27 AM

It's foolish for abstinence to be really promoted, because it simply doesn't work. We come programed for procreation. Unless we want to chemically castrate every young person, we might as well accept things for what they are and make sure that if they're going to drop trou, that they at least have an understanding of the risks involved, and ways to mitigate them.

As far as sex ed goes in school, honestly, it should be kinda graphic. I'm not saying that you should show porn, but people need to have a real understanding of their physiology and the whole process. A young person's ignorance of their sexuality is a far bigger danger than any possible "moral" bullshit that the family first folks like to promote, as such I'm all for full disclosure if parents are too cowardly or pigheaded to understand that.

kuwisdelu

01-01-2009, 10:30 AM

Well, since I introduced it in the first place...

Algebra is pretty concrete. Either an equation works or it doesn't.

Similarly, either something is a fallopian tube, or it isn't.

Either you're pregnant, or you're not.

Either you're practicing safe sex, or you're not.

All subjects have pretty basic facts that can be taught without personal views.

Even economics, you don't have to teach "this is what works"--you can teach "this school of economic theory believes this" and that is a fact.

Even when it comes to more advanced, more gray-area topics this is possible. For example, in statistics there are frequentists and Bayesianists, who believe in very different ways of evaluating statistical data. In my stats inference course last semester, we learned both--it didn't matter that my professor was a frequentist, nor does it matter that I, my father, and most statisticians are...we still learned both schools of thought. Because it is a fact that both schools of thought exist and this is what they believe and it's worth it to know that. We still believe the others are full of shit and will go back to cutting each others heads off after class, but that's beside the point.

kuwisdelu

01-01-2009, 10:35 AM

I guess, Capt, the real point is that you *do* have valid concerns.

But trying to remove an otherwise relevant, important topic completely from the curriculum for the possible personal views that could be introduced into the classroom is ridiculous.

Better, we should work toward making sure teachers teach *facts* and keep their personal views out of the classroom. That is something I can completely agree on. But that does not mean removing topics wholesale out of the curriculum.

Otherwise, there wouldn't be a whole lot *left* to teach in schools...

aruna

01-01-2009, 11:37 AM

Isn't this a case of the parent having such credibility that the child (teenager) will actually prefer to trust his/her words rather than what the teacher says?

ie if the parent makes a good and rational case that promiscuity is a bad idea, without ramming it down the kid's throat, it really doesn't matter what those freelovin' evil wiccan teachers teach. I would concentrate on being a parent who makes such good sense the child can discriminate for him or herself between right and wrong. Easier said than done, I know, and these are scary times for the more old fashioned among us -- and I cound myself among that lot.

But somewhere along the line we have to trust the decision making process of the kid, and that means being credible yourself.

Kids react in two ways to the fire-and-brimstone kind of preaching that condemns modern morals: they either believe it, or they don't. And if they don't you get a fully-fledged rebel on your hands who will do exactly the opposite of what you preached, and take pleasure in your horror.

It's a good idea, as a parent, to have other arguments in your repertoire than "pre marital sex is evil". That just doesn't work for many, if ot most, young people.

astonwest

01-01-2009, 05:50 PM

Isn't this a case of the parent having such credibility that the child (teenager) will actually prefer to trust his/her words rather than what the teacher says?
Unless your child knows what the teacher is saying is "wrong" in the first place and informs you, how will you (as the parent) know what's being taught in the class?

Just curious on my part...

Celia Cyanide

01-01-2009, 10:10 PM

No, I haven't. I've never argued against it. I've argued that it's different from algebra, and that personal opinion should NOT be a part of it.

I can agree with you there.

I've argued that there's a danger of personal opinion being injected into it, and therefore should NOT be treated like any other class. That's it.

I can't agree with you there. Math is different from sex ed, in that there is more of a danger of personal opinion being injected into sex ed. However, there is also a danger of personal opinion being injected into history, science, current events, social studies, and many other subjects, too. Sex ed is one of many.

Also, as for a teacher telling kids that they should go out and practice free love...are you serious? I personally remember teachers telling us in public school that, "this candidate is pro choice, and that means he says it's okay to kill babies." But I have never in my life heard of a teacher telling kids to have casual sex in sex ed class. I just don't think it's a valid concern.

Celia Cyanide

01-01-2009, 10:11 PM

Unless your child knows what the teacher is saying is "wrong" in the first place and informs you, how will you (as the parent) know what's being taught in the class?

You can ask. The schools usually don't keep their curriculum a secret from the parents.

Captshady

01-01-2009, 10:45 PM

Also, as for a teacher telling kids that they should go out and practice free love...are you serious? I personally remember teachers telling us in public school that, "this candidate is pro choice, and that means he says it's okay to kill babies." But I have never in my life heard of a teacher telling kids to have casual sex in sex ed class. I just don't think it's a valid concern.

Yes because NOBODY in the education system realizes that they mold young minds, and none of them have that attitude? It's just impossible to happen?

Monkey

01-01-2009, 10:55 PM

A teacher can realize that they mold young minds AND have strong personal views and still keep their personal views out of the curriculum. It happens all the time. It's a matter of professionalism.

My husband is a teacher. He never lets his students know--overtly or through context clues--what his religion and political affiliation are. These things are extremely important to him and he believes them wholeheartedly, but it's not his job to push his views on the students in his care.

Add to that the warnings that teachers are given before they start teaching Sex Ed, and the immediate feedback they're going to get if parents start coming to the principle to complain, and no, I don't think your scenario is very likely.

And if it happens, it can be remedied quickly.

Toothpaste

01-01-2009, 10:56 PM

Captshady - I think in general everyone is agreeing here. Teach the facts, not morality.

Now you are right in that teachers are human, and there are definitely those who will preach their own values even if they have been asked not to (btw these are what are known as bad teachers). But instead of entering into a theoretical debate, can I ask you a straightforward question:

Do you want sex ed taught in schools?

No qualifications. No, "Yes, but". My question is, would you rather have sex ed taught in schools than not? Despite the fact that no class is ever perfect, and there might be the occasional teacher who preaches his/her own morality on top of the standard curriculum (a curriculum based solely on facts and science).

maestrowork

01-01-2009, 10:59 PM

The alternative is to leave it up to the teens to learn about sex from their parents or their peers. We all know how well the former works (let's have a show of hands -- how many parents here had the "talk" with their teens and gave them the correct information instead of "just don't do it until you're married"?)... as for the latter, it's really not something the parents want to have happened, really... there's how teenage pregnancy happens.

In that case, as a parent, I would really appreciate a teacher to impart on teens clear, informative, accurate knowledge. As for morality, it starts from home. Really, it does. If the parents are not so keen on teaching their kids values or mortality to begin with, how are we to trust them to teach their kids the facts of life responsibly? And it's not realistic to assume that all parents are responsible when it comes to their children's sexual education...

kuwisdelu

01-01-2009, 11:02 PM

Yes because NOBODY in the education system realizes that they mold young minds, and none of them have that attitude? It's just impossible to happen?

I don't think anyone's saying it's impossible. We're just saying as far as concerns go, it's not a rational reason to try to remove an entire topic from the curriculum. It's a concern that certainly justifies making sure teachers stick to the facts rather than personal opinion--but if one were to say it's a valid reason not to even teach sex ed, the same could be said for just about everything else being taught in schools.

And for anyone who doesn't think personal opinion can be injected into mathematics...remember "new math"? Sure, it was still "correct", but still... I guess that's all beside the point...

Not to mention, I've never heard of a teacher encourage promiscuity...but I've heard plenty of tales of sex ed teachers crying "DON'T HAVE PREMARITAL SEX YOU'LL GET TEH AIDS AND TEH PREGNANT AND YOU'LL RUIN YOUR LIFE!!11"

Captshady

01-01-2009, 11:05 PM

maestrowork

01-01-2009, 11:08 PM

When I went to school, we had ethics and Bible studies classes, as well as civil duties, etc. By that extension, should the parents ask for those programs to be terminated because, god forbid, how do we know the teachers are teaching them the right thing? Let's just reduce everything in school to arts and sciences, because, wow, we don't really want teachers to "mold" our kids. Many parents, after all, are doing such great jobs already.

kuwisdelu

01-01-2009, 11:09 PM

I'm saying that it SHOULD be taught, but treated with kid gloves.

Huh?

maestrowork

01-01-2009, 11:14 PM

Well, I can sort of understand... I mean, I would rather the sex ed classes focus on the human anatomy, conception, the danger of STDs, etc. -- more like health classes. (That's what I had in high school.) But not about how to put on a condom, how to perform oral sex, how to pleasure your partner, passing out condoms, and other contraceptives, etc. -- anything that seems to say, "go ahead, have sex now. We have what you need."

What I see is a difference in attitude. One is more about the facts and how things work, and the other has the layer of "it's okay to have sex" message that a lot of parents do NOT want the school to give. The school doesn't have to say, "Don't have sex until you're married" (that's morality -- leave it to the parents), but they also should give out mixed signals that "having sex with you're 15 is okay." Schools should focus on the information and be neutral.

Captshady

01-01-2009, 11:21 PM

I'm with Obama on this one. By all means, give condoms out in the latter 2 years of high school. Teach options, teach the dangers. But still, make sure parents are involved. Let them know the specifics. I'm not an educator, I definitely don't have the answers. But personal experience tells me that 1) there's a danger involved in having the wrong teachers teaching this subject and 2) it can blow up easily, and the ones hurt will be the kids.

Abstinence only isn't working, it's time to move on ... SLOWLY, until we find out what does work.

kuwisdelu

01-01-2009, 11:21 PM

But not about how to put on a condom, how to perform oral sex, how to pleasure your partner, passing out condoms, and other contraceptives, etc. -- anything that seems to say, "go ahead, have sex now. We have what you need."

The oral sex part is unnecessary, but I've never heard of any schools doing that.

But I think putting on a condom is a pretty important part of sex ed. The biggest way for condoms to fail as a contraceptive is through people using them wrong--you'd be surprised at how many people don't know how to properly put on a condom. I don't think teaching that in sex ed is encouraging them to have sex any more than teaching how conception works encourages them to get pregnant.

Likewise with passing out condoms--my school didn't do it, but I don't think it automatically encourages sex. Being prepared doesn't mean you're going to need it, or even intend on needing it--it means being better safe than sorry. I suspect most people who carry a gun hope they never have to use it.

maestrowork

01-01-2009, 11:42 PM

But that's a tricky perception issue. By giving out free condoms and teaching the kids how to put them on, there is an implicit message that says, "it's okay. Have fun with it." I mean, a school is not going to take all the kids to a shooting range and show them how to fire a gun -- and if they do, there is a message saying, "handling a gun is important and you should learn" and thus an indirect message that says, "guns are cool. You should use it."

It is a tricky thing. In my sex ed class I didn't get to learn about condoms, etc. It didn't make me an idiot when I finally lost my virginity. I can very well buy them myself and follow the instructions on the box, thank you very much. To me, it's unnecessary to teach the kids how to use them in a classroom setting. It's important to teach them what condoms are for and that they should use them to protect themselves. To me, showing them how to put a condom on a dildo or a banana is giving off certain message, and it's not necessary. If anything, perhaps an educational seminar on a "as needed" basis.

Of course, the proponents would say, "it's embarrassment. If the student is embarrassed then they wouldn't ask for it and then they wouldn't use it." To that, my answer is: of course they should be embarrassed, so they don't treat sex as something totally random and casual. That it's a serious decision. And if you're not ready to talk to your counselor or teacher or school nurse about it, maybe you shouldn't be doing it.

And passing out condoms in school? I'd say, if you need one, ask your teacher. I understand the dilemma, that if kids are going to have sex anyway, they should have the resources and that includes the availability of condoms, or else they would not use them. But just because the school clinics are passing out condoms doesn't mean the kids will use them either. But what it means is, "having sex when you're 15 is fine." I think there should be restrictions, counseling, and required education involved, if not parental involvement. Granted, I don't know if schools are passing out condoms, no questions asked. To me, it's like passing out free booze, thinking "they may not drink it."

p.s. I'm no prude and people on here know my view on sex. Still, I think when you deal with teenagers, especially in a school setting, you have to walk a thin line between information and message, and maintain certain neutrality so you're not condoning or condemning. You want the kids to be protected, but at the same time you don't want to make it look like sex is casual and a fun activity like coloring a book, because there are serious consequences especially for people that young.

kuwisdelu

01-02-2009, 12:05 AM

Maybe it's just perspective, but I just don't see it sending that message at all.

Speaking as a former student who got sex ed in 5th and 8th grade, I don't recall anyone else really getting the "go for it, have sex!" message either.

When they're involved in a mature dialogue about sex, kids are smarter than we sometimes think. When they're being patronized or not being given the information in the first place--they aren't.

I think the booze example is false. After all, a kid will never be in a situation where one can say "not the ideal situation...but at least they had booze!"

rugcat

01-02-2009, 12:06 AM

It is a tricky thing. In my sex ed class I didn't get to learn about condoms, etc. It didn't make me an idiot when I finally lost my virginity. I can very well buy them myself and follow the instructions on the box, thank you very much. To me, it's unnecessary to teach the kids how to use them in a classroom setting. Sorry to break this to you Ray, but you're not a typical person. Nor, I suspect, were you a typical teenager.

There are plenty of teens that really can benefit from having things spelled out for them, and in fact need to have them be.

Captshady

01-02-2009, 12:14 AM

There are plenty of teens that really can benefit from having things spelled out for them, and in fact need to have them be.

And the teacher need to be highly qualified and trained in presentation. It can't be the basketball coach during the off season.

kuwisdelu

01-02-2009, 12:18 AM

And the teacher need to be highly qualified and trained in presentation. It can't be the basketball coach during the off season.

So...an ancient Greek prostitute from Lesbos?

Captshady

01-02-2009, 12:22 AM

So...an ancient Greek prostitute from Lesbos?

LOL, Sign ME up!

maestrowork

01-02-2009, 01:00 AM

Dman, and I had my grumpy biology teacher showing us a "documentary" slide show. I feel deprived.

astonwest

01-02-2009, 01:50 AM

And the teacher need to be highly qualified and trained in presentation. It can't be the basketball coach during the off season.
Oddly, our sex-ed teacher was the PE instructor/coach...who was years later removed from the school. From what I recall, it was on allegations he became involved with a female student.

rugcat

01-02-2009, 02:08 AM

Oddly, our sex-ed teacher was the PE instructor/coach...who was years later removed from the school. From what I recall, it was on allegations he became involved with a female student.Perhaps he believed in hands on teaching.

Cyia

01-02-2009, 02:09 AM

There's no reason that the school nurse couldn't keep condoms in her office and hand them out if a student who is legally the age allowed to decide on a sexual relationship requests one.

Celia Cyanide

01-02-2009, 05:57 AM

Yes because NOBODY in the education system realizes that they mold young minds, and none of them have that attitude? It's just impossible to happen?

It's just not very likely. If there are teachers who believe in promiscuity, they probably know it's not appropriate to encourage teenagers to engage in it.

It's possible that it could happen. It's also possible that a teacher could say in history class that slavery should never have been abolished. It's still not a real reason why history should not be taught in schools.

Cyia

01-02-2009, 06:33 AM

It's possible that it could happen. It's also possible that a teacher could say in history class that slavery should never have been abolished. It's still not a real reason why history should not be taught in schools.

We actually did have one who said that the north was only anti-slavery in an attempt to lure a large workforce (via the Underground Railroad) to their side of the Mason-Dixon. Of course we also had a Biology teacher try to argue that fish were a species of plant...

Dommo

01-02-2009, 07:23 AM

Actually the emancipation proclamation was largely made to undermine the southern war economy from a purely militaristic point of view. So in that sense your history was right.

kuwisdelu

01-02-2009, 07:30 AM

Actually the emancipation proclamation was largely made to undermine the southern war economy from a purely militaristic point of view. So in that sense your history was right.

That's a far, far cry from "the north was only anti-slavery in an attempt to lure a large workforce (via the Underground Railroad) to their side of the Mason-Dixon," though.

Captshady

01-02-2009, 07:31 AM

It's just not very likely. If there are teachers who believe in promiscuity, they probably know it's not appropriate to encourage teenagers to engage in it.

It's possible that it could happen. It's also possible that a teacher could say in history class that slavery should never have been abolished. It's still not a real reason why history should not be taught in schools.

Has there been an increase or decrease in teacher-student pedophilia?

kuwisdelu

01-02-2009, 07:48 AM

Has there been an increase or decrease in teacher-student pedophilia?

I'd hardly call that pedophilia.

And I'd say there's been an increase in media coverage of timeless sex scandals.

Captshady

01-02-2009, 07:52 AM

I'd hardly call that pedophilia.

And I'd say there's been an increase in media coverage of timeless sex scandals.

Enough, for me, to prove that the possibility of a teacher interjecting bad information into the subject matter isn't at near impossible chances.

Toothpaste

01-02-2009, 08:01 AM

Enough, for me, to prove that the possibility of a teacher interjecting bad information into the subject matter isn't at near impossible chances.

Hon I am sorry this is a logical fallacy. There is no way that the fact that there have been relations between teachers and students (since the dawn of time mind you, not just in recent years - it's simply now we have a greater understanding of the concept of abuse, and people reporting it, as well as the media covering it), and what will be taught in a sex ed class.

Aside from the fact that you are assuming somehow the teachers who teach sex ed are therefore more likely to have affairs with students (which cannot remotely be proven), it is highly unlikely, and especially in the current climate, that a sex ed teacher would try anything on a student because it would be so the obvious place to try it. Any of these "affairs" you hear about on the television take place very discretely, often for months before anyone uncovers them. No teacher who is interested in a student would go for them in sex ed, nor would they preach promiscuity because it would lead them to being considered by the general high school populace as the promiscuous teacher. If anything, such a teacher would in fact preach something akin to abstinence to totally cover for themselves.

Nor is it the promiscuous who always abuse children, see for example what happened recently in the Catholic church.

I appreciate that you are saying, since there have been affairs between teachers and students, not all teachers are saints and therefore some are likely to teach badly. But we have already agreed to that point. Still most of us, including yourself, approve of the existence of sex ed programs, and therefore we must figure out how best to make the curriculum standard.

You want it taught carefully. Well that is great, and I agree. I also think ALL courses should be taught carefully. Each is unique and faces its own unique challenges. People here have been talking about history classes where a teacher might preach racism or sexism. That is equally detrimental to a young mind. As is a math teacher telling a child she is stupid and should drop out of the class (as I had happen to me - fortunately I am a stubborn little bugger and finished the year with a B). Not a single solitary person here is saying that sex ed shouldn't be a carefully constructed course. We in fact all agree. I understand your concern, but at the crux of it all, you still believe it should be taught. So why are we fighting each other? We in essence agree.

Jerry B. Flory

01-02-2009, 08:23 AM

maestrowork

01-02-2009, 08:53 AM

thethinker42

01-02-2009, 09:07 AM

No teacher who is interested in a student would go for them in sex ed, nor would they preach promiscuity because it would lead them to being considered by the general high school populace as the promiscuous teacher. If anything, such a teacher would in fact preach something akin to abstinence to totally cover for themselves.

I agree with this. I know a couple of teachers who are swingers, and they are extra careful when discussing anything relating to sex with their students. They want nothing to do with their students (sexually speaking), and wouldn't dare give parents or students a reason to believe that they do. The last thing they would think of doing is letting on that they in any way believe in promiscuity, nevermind openly encouraging their students to do it.

darrtwish

01-02-2009, 09:09 AM

In all honesty I think Sex Ed should be taught. Yes, what they teach us nowadays can be a little bit much, especially with the pictures and stuff (and from gr.5-gr.9 the years I had sex ed--sex ed is still taught in gr.10-12 but only through the gym classes and gym isn't required after 9th grade--, they did show us picture after picture of STI's) but to be honest, I think it really works. Sure there are going to be some that go out and have unprotected sex, or even protected sex anyways. But it's their decision to go out and do that, and they have to deal with the consequences. It's just like every other decision we make in life. And despite the fact by the last few years of sex ed, students just stop paying attention (I being one of them...but only because my mind was so scarred that I couldn't bear to look at any more pictures..without wanting to vomit), I think it is still a good thing to have in the school system.

Since about I'd say seventh grade, they made it painfully clear to us that the means of contraceptives are available (namely at the teen health centre as well as drug stores) because they knew that teenagers obviously aren't going to listen to everything that you tell them to, and do things that you think aren't best for them.

I don't really think there's anything you can do to stop teenagers from having sex, so I think Sex Ed is crucial to protecting today's teenagers. I don't think it's necessarily goading teenagers into having sex by providing them with information.

Also I'd like to point out that there are still a considerable amount of teenagers that have the information they were given, whether it be from parents or the school system or both, and formed their own beliefs about it. Myself included, there are some teenagers out there who have really strong morals and beliefs, that were developed without any outside guidance, who will hold out for the right one, at the right time.

Phoebe H

01-02-2009, 09:54 AM

Has there been an increase or decrease in teacher-student pedophilia?

I'd have to think a decrease, since it is tolerated so much less than in the past.

kuwisdelu

01-02-2009, 11:01 AM

Enough, for me, to prove that the possibility of a teacher interjecting bad information into the subject matter isn't at near impossible chances.

Err...teacher/student relationships have nothing to do with that.

Talk about a non sequiter.

ETA: Basically what Toothpaste said. And to further add on to that, I'd like to point out that a teacher having relations with a student does not necessarily comment upon their teaching ability. The only teacher in my high school who hit on me (it was a small high school) was also a damn good algebra teacher--the best one there, actually. And if I'd been lucky enough to sleep with her, I can assure you that my A in her class wouldn't only be because of my performance in the bedroom (though it definitely wouldn't have hurt ;))--I think we're often too quick to judge the integrity and morality of suck such teachers.

^Freudian slip. My bad.

kuwisdelu

01-02-2009, 11:12 AM

To keep it simple, if they're going to pass out condoms and any sex aids, then the same rules that apply to underage girls seeking abortion should apply to the kids receiving those aids. Upon reception of those products the parents are notified, or they don't get them without a signed permission slip and confirming phone call from the parents.

At the risk of using "err" again, and especially at the risk of bringing up an abortion debate again...but err...I'd like to point out that not only do not all states require underage girls' parents be notified of an abortion or consent to it, but for those states that do require it, Real Life has shown it's a dangerous, dangerous law. Parental notification laws hurt underage pregnant girls in domestic abuse situations, encouraging them either to seek out far more dangerous back-alley abortions or putting them in danger of further abuse. Similarly, the same thing can happen even to girls who aren't in abusive situations, but are nonetheless too afraid of their parents finding out to get an abortion from a licensed doctor. This is unfortunately too common in my state...

Interpolating more parental notification and consent into something as simple as obtaining condoms is ridiculous. Fortunately that's not the case. I don't even want to think about the possible consequences.

As an added treat, any couples that wind up pregnant get followed around by a kid from the video club who gets extra credit for making a documentary of the relationship and the progress of the pregnancy until the child is born. The films can be shown in health class.

The girl's already pregnant. Do you really want to put her through more hell?

I'm not sure I can even comment on this one. I assume you're joking.

Come on.

Zoombie

01-02-2009, 11:57 AM

God, if I had to inform my mom of buying condoms, I'd feel very awkward. And she's one of the best, most awesome and non-abusive moms ever!

Well, she does make me take out the trash and clean my room...but I think that's a trait all moms share.

Though I'm sure she already knows cause she reads these forums.

But, really, if I had one of those whackjob Moms...or Dads...

Ugh.

That'd be pretty dang sticky.

Jenan Mac

01-02-2009, 05:29 PM

wow....*cough* Intresting. I for one being 14 in a half, have no plans to have sex till I'm maybe 20..... I know a lot of kids in my eighth grade class who have had sex already and guys who have there wallets packed full of condoms. The teachers don't do anything about it either. So much for teachers caring. I'm just saying this all doesn't surprise me.

::genuinely curious::
What do you expect the teachers to actually do about it?
And anyway, why do we expect teachers, for $40,000 a year and in between six or seven hours of teaching roughly 180 kids not their own, expected to monitor and successfully change their students' sex lives when the kids' resident grownups can't or won't?

Jenan Mac

01-02-2009, 05:36 PM

Indeed. Morality is present in every subject in school. It is the parents responsibility to teach their children morality, and how it relates to what they learn in school. As far as information itself, it's no more the parent's responsibility to teach sex ed than it is to teach them who discovered America or why The Grapes Of Wrath is an important book.

It's the parent's responsibility to see that their children are educated, and to be sure that the education given is appropriate (whatever that means). In some cases, that may well mean doing it oneself or finding a better plan than simply sending him off to the public school and assuming the job will get done. If the education my child receives is inadequate, it's as much my fault as it is that of the people I've contracted with to teach him.

Jenan Mac

01-02-2009, 05:52 PM

Jenan Mac

01-02-2009, 06:11 PM

I'm saying that it SHOULD be taught, but treated with kid gloves.

I'll add that the danger of treating it the same as any other class is to cause a potential revolt and a barrage of propaganda by those opposed to teaching anything besides abstinence.

And this is different in what way than teaching American History, Western Civilization, literature, world religions, or ethics classes?

kikazaru

01-02-2009, 06:43 PM

What I find very odd about the whole "virginity pledge/abstinence only" school of thought is that it was so obviously one of those pie in the sky ideas - lovely in theory but so obvious that in practice it would not be a huge success. The results of this study showing that it didn't work for a lot of kids (and on the contrary actually put them more at risk for std and pregnancy because they had more unprotected sex) was not a huge surprise.

What I also find so strange is that people can see, just by looking at countries where the teenage pregnancy rate is so much lower, is that time and again education is what works, that and easy access to birth control.

Yet even though there is more than enough proof in the stats of other countries compared to the teen pregnancy/std stats in the US, a segment of the population insists that there is no need for comprehensive sex ed and birth control distribution centres. ???

Why is there such a disconnect, I truly don't get this.

astonwest

01-02-2009, 07:56 PM

Fortunately, I didn't have to take any sort of pledge to ensure abstinence through HS.

:)

scarletpeaches

01-02-2009, 08:01 PM

I had greasy hair, NHS specs, bad skin and B.O. so that worked better than any abstinence pledge.

Captshady

01-02-2009, 08:13 PM

And this is different in what way than teaching American History, Western Civilization, literature, world religions, or ethics classes?

None of those classes will result in teen pregnancy or death via an STD, and there are fewer disagreements on how it can/should be taught.

LOL! The local Wiccan hps in my town IS Republican, Shady. In your zeal to make a tangential point, you lost the original one.
That's the problem with stereotypes. Aside from being ignorant, they take people out of the moment. In short, they're bad writing.

Oh, well I stand corrected! Most wiccans are sexually uptight prudes. Feel better?

tjwriter

01-02-2009, 08:58 PM

In jr. high, our school provided a comprehensive, facts based sex ed program that I thought was pretty good. We learned about the physical body including how reproduction worked, the full scope of STDs, and what the different types of birth control were. I think it was a very good, non biased program that didn't lean any direction, for or against being sexually active.

I soaked up all that information and became the person that people came to see when they had sex questions.

I don't see why it has to be encouraging or discouraging of sexual activity. It can be just the facts. Heck, the pictures of STD infected genitals were pretty discouraging in their own right.

But then, I am a believer of the theory that you can't force someone to change their mind, so it's better to arm them with good, solid information so they can make informed decisions. Nobody could have stopped me from becoming sexually active when I did, but at least I had the information to protect myself from pregnancy and STDs.

kikazaru

01-02-2009, 09:24 PM

None of those classes will result in teen pregnancy or death via an STD, and there are fewer disagreements on how it can/should be taught.

But teen pregnancies and death via stds is exactly what sex ed is trying to prevent.

After reading this thread I'm not sure exactly why anyone would be against factual information being taught to kids. School is in the business of teaching facts, they teach biology and reproduction is part of this. How ridiculous it would be to teach everything above the belly button and below the knees but leave out the parts that could have far reaching consequences to the rest of their lives.

We are all human, we all have bodies and we will at some point in our lives have sex. Knowledge is power, forewarned is forearmed, the best offence is the the best defence etc etc.etc. For those kids lucky enough to have parents that love and care for them enough to see that they have moral guidance,then this will just be added insurance. For those kids who are unlucky enough to have parents who don't care or are too uptight, then the information they obtain at school may be the only thing standing between them and pregnancy or an std that could kill them.

By all means teach your child what it is you expect of them. If they listen to you at all times then you are very fortunate indeed. If they listen, then do what they want (as I, and everyone I knew did) then at least they may have the knowledge to protect themselves.

Jerry B. Flory

01-02-2009, 09:59 PM

The girl's already pregnant. Do you really want to put her through more hell?

I'm not sure I can even comment on this one. I assume you're joking.
I was joking, but I think the girl would take the filming a lot better than the guy would. If a kid's trying to make a good documentary he's not going to upset that girl or become a threat. The person who's going to face the tough questioning and be put on the spot is the guy who put the girl in that condition.
Most girls might even enjoy having that documentary around.
But, yes, I was joking.
With or without the camera there is peer pressure. The camera becomes concentrated peer pressure that could very well have positive influences on later generations. But this is a radical idea and therefore will never be considered.

Shadow_Ferret

01-02-2009, 10:16 PM

I didn't go through puberty until I was 23, so abstinence in High School was pretty much a given.

However, I don't understand why teaching abstinence seems so reviled.

astonwest

01-02-2009, 10:21 PM

After reading this thread I'm not sure exactly why anyone would be against factual information being taught to kids. School is in the business of teaching facts, they teach biology and reproduction is part of this. How ridiculous it would be to teach everything above the belly button and below the knees but leave out the parts that could have far reaching consequences to the rest of their lives.
If you follow the rest of this thread, you'll find that different people have different opinions, but not everyone who is against sex-ed classes is against "factual information being taught to kids."

Some believe that the information should be taught, but by the parents.

Some believe that the information should be taught, if it was limited only to the factual information...but that it's too much to believe that only facts will be presented.

I'm certain other beliefs are out there as to why it shouldn't be taught...but before the tar catches feathers (or fire), I'll end the post here.

astonwest

01-02-2009, 10:22 PM

However, I don't understand why teaching abstinence seems so reviled.
Personally, I'd like to see some of the answers to this...compare it against my guesses. :)

maestrowork

01-02-2009, 10:36 PM

I don't think teaching abstinence is reviled. It's just that when there is no alternative, no other information, or worse, bad information associated with those programs -- with the "pie in the sky" assumption that kids will honor abstinence. The question is: what if they want to have sex anyway? They'll have nothing to go on to protect themselves.

And the OP talked about exactly that issue -- teens, who are taught abstinence only, do not keep that promise. So if they had no pertinent knowledge on things such as contraceptive, STD prevention, etc. then what happens when they decide to sneak around and have sex anyway?

Just as someone asked, "What if the kids learned all that and still went and had unprotected sex?" At least they HAVE the information when they choose not to follow through. The same question can be asked: "What if the kids were taught abstinence and still went and had sex anyway?" So what other information and knowledge did we arm them with? Nothing. It's either "abstain from sex" or "you're screwed" (so to speak). That's the problem with some of these "abstinence only" programs. It's a proverbial "head in the sand" type of thing. Great in theory, but fails in reality.

Toothpaste

01-02-2009, 11:01 PM

Exactly what Maestro said. Teaching abstinence in lieu of any other form of dealing with sexual relations, in lieu of information about STDs and pregnancy has already been proven to not work.

Now I have no problem with a teacher saying, "To protect yourself from STDs and pregnancy you should use this method and this method. However the only 100% protection is abstinence." But without the former, I don't want children being taught solely the latter. It breeds disinformation, and doesn't work. The whole point of this thread is that it doesn't work.

aston - people have said over and over again that it would be wonderful if parents would teach their children the facts about sex. But they don't. MOST don't. So you can live in your idealised world, I meantime would like to find the best way to reach all children, to make them educated and safe. And yes, it won't be perfect, but at least I'll be trying a method that is actually feasible (as opposed to somehow monitoring every single parent in the country and making sure they sit down with their children and talk to them about sex, and not only talk to them about sex but make sure that what they are telling their children is accurate and factual).

BTW I was one of those kids whose parents DID tell her all about sex, who was incredibly informed. I went then to sex ed classes in middle school and high school and knew it all already. But I wasn't bored or resentful, I found it interesting to listen again, and genuinely shocking the misinformation my peers had. I could not believe that they didn't already know all this stuff, and wondered if it weren't for these classes would they have ever learned? Even as a kid, I understood how important those kinds of classes were for kids whose parents refused to have such conversations with them. Oh and also, I never once had a teacher who pushed her/his own agenda or morality. These programs were always strictly fact based. I wonder if the people who fear these kinds of classes have been to one recently? Maybe before making judgments you should attend one yourself, and see just how such classes work.

rugcat

01-02-2009, 11:04 PM

Personally, I'd like to see some of the answers to this...compare it against my guesses. :)I think partly because more liberal posters tend to also be more liberal in terms of sexual matters. Abstinence only programs, at core, are almost exclusively a product of conservative religious philosophy -- with the emphasis on religious.

No matter what they say, the bottom line is that they believe that sex is intrinsically immoral, except under certain guidelines, such as marriage. Thus, any teaching that presents sex in a neutral light is inherently flawed and should be discouraged.

Since it's a matter of faith and morality, no amount of studies or statistics about the effectiveness or lack of such an approach will sway them. Abstinence as the absolute preferred goal is taken as a given. Were stds or unplanned pregnancies not issues, it still wouldn't change many opinions.

And remember, it's not the teaching of abstinence as a preferred goal which is really in question. It's the abstinence only approach -- the insistence that no other form of sex ed be taught. It's the belief that withholding information is a valid part of the educational process.

It's not that different than banning certain books, because those doing the banning feel the information or philosophy in those books is harmful.

Tirjasdyn

01-02-2009, 11:51 PM

And in other news: Water is still wet.

kuwisdelu

01-03-2009, 12:09 AM

I think partly because more liberal posters tend to also be more liberal in terms of sexual matters. Abstinence only programs, at core, are almost exclusively a product of conservative religious philosophy -- with the emphasis on religious.

No matter what they say, the bottom line is that they believe that sex is intrinsically immoral, except under certain guidelines, such as marriage. Thus, any teaching that presents sex in a neutral light is inherently flawed and should be discouraged.

Since it's a matter of faith and morality, no amount of studies or statistics about the effectiveness or lack of such an approach will sway them. Abstinence as the absolute preferred goal is taken as a given. Were stds or unplanned pregnancies not issues, it still wouldn't change many opinions.

And remember, it's not the teaching of abstinence as a preferred goal which is really in question. It's the abstinence only approach -- the insistence that no other form of sex ed be taught. It's the belief that withholding information is a valid part of the educational process.

It's not that different than banning certain books, because those doing the banning feel the information or philosophy in those books is harmful.

Exactly.

To put it more succinctly (and more controversially):

Faith means believing in something regardless of evidence.

Cyia

01-03-2009, 01:58 AM

Exactly.

To put it more succinctly (and more controversially):

Faith means believing in something regardless of evidence.

Actually that's not all that controversial a statement. Most preachers that I've heard say the same thing in context of "Faith is the substance of things not seen, the evidence of things hoped for." Meaning what you believe is more real than that which you can see.

maestrowork

01-03-2009, 02:20 AM

Echoing what Toothpaste said, I have nothing against saying "abstinence is the only 100% effective method of preventing pregnancy and STDs" as long as the other stuff is taught. Knowledge empowers people. There's a danger of presenting them with a fear- or faith-based, abstinence only program without arming them with the other pertinent knowledge. Worse, some programs deliberately present wrong and inaccurate information ("you can get AIDS by touching someone" or "masturbation can lead to unwanted pregnancy")... don't laugh, some programs really do spew these kinds of nonsense.

As for parents, I am really curious how many really would have that serious and frank "talk" with their sexually mature teens? My parents, as open-minded as they are (and both in the medical fields), never talked to me about sex. I'd be surprised if many parents do. Now what?

Celia Cyanide

01-03-2009, 02:21 AM

However, I don't understand why teaching abstinence seems so reviled.

Well, when you're teaching abstinence-only education, and a kid asks a question about the effectiveness of condoms, the teacher can't answer. They're supposed to say, "We're here to talk about abstinence."

When a kid asks a question, and the teacher responds with, "I'm not going to tell you," that's never a good way to teach, IMO.

kuwisdelu

01-03-2009, 03:10 AM

The only problem with teaching that abstinence is the only 100% effective method of birth control is that there was this one incident back in ancient Palestine, about two thousand years ago...

Phoebe H

01-03-2009, 03:53 AM

As for parents, I am really curious how many really would have that serious and frank "talk" with their sexually mature teens? My parents, as open-minded as they are (and both in the medical fields), never talked to me about sex. I'd be surprised if many parents do. Now what?

I had the talk with my kids when they turned 10. I wanted to make sure and do it before any embarrassment kicked in on their part. I've had followup talks with my oldest as appropriate, and they both know that I will answer *any* question they have (which has been put to the test).

My father was a small town pediatrician, and so he talked very frankly about all this stuff with me from an extremely young age. (Childbirth stories were not uncommon dinnertime conversation.) We also had a farm and raised cattle, which gives you a whole other level to discuss all this stuff. (Including homosexuality -- I often wonder if people who call it 'unnatural' have ever, you know, spent time around actual animals.) It actually took me a long time to figure out that there were adults who were uncomfortable talking about this stuff.

Captshady

01-03-2009, 04:06 AM

Toothpaste

01-03-2009, 04:14 AM

Interesting, and predictable, but you will notice that at the end of the article the author of the study says that kids should still be educated about sex in school (as well as in the home).

Jenan Mac

01-03-2009, 05:09 AM

None of those classes will result in teen pregnancy or death via an STD, and there are fewer disagreements on how it can/should be taught.

I'll concede the first half of the sentence. As for the second...fewer disagreements on how American history should be taught? Even leaving aside Christopher Columbus, the origins of Thanksgiving, the Vietnam War and current events, the Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression/That Late Unpleasantness offers myriad options. Not to mention all the debates about what gets taught in science classes concerning the origins of...well, just about anything.

Oh, well I stand corrected! Most wiccans are sexually uptight prudes. Feel better?

Not particularly. Stereotypes aren't improved by sarcasm, IME.

Jenan Mac

01-03-2009, 05:23 AM

As for parents, I am really curious how many really would have that serious and frank "talk" with their sexually mature teens? My parents, as open-minded as they are (and both in the medical fields), never talked to me about sex. I'd be surprised if many parents do. Now what?

I did, with the two eldest. Not "that talk", specifically, because it was more a series of ongoing discussions like any other. We hit the highlights, though, including condoms, AIDS, "reputations", pregnancy (my daughter vividly recalls pushing a Cabbage Patch doll through a circle made from index fingers and thumbs)...the whole nine yards. The only part that really got to me was when my 18yo daughter wanted to discuss the particulars of her boyfriend's ED. <scream>
As for the youngest (who are 11)...we're studying anatomy & physiology this semester, so we'll hit the basics. They're appalled at the idea of learning about sex, but IME this is the best time to teach them-- before they're interested for practical reasons.

Jenan Mac

01-03-2009, 05:33 AM

This just in LOL!

Study: Religious Teens More Likely to Abstain from Sex (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475306,00.html)

Now, before the inevitable attacks begin, let me say (like it'll make any difference) that I am posting this here SOLELY for the point of discussion, not as something I fricken endorse.

I'm curious to know how they define "religious". Most of the time I see it used as a synonym for "mainstream and conservative Christian", or possibly "Christian with a few Jews and maybe a Muslim thrown in for diversity's sake". An unnecessarily narrow definition, in that it assumes Scientologists or Wiccans (to beat a dead horse) or, say, Tsalagi don't qualify as religious-- but typical of mainstream media. I looked at the article, but it didn't elaborate.

Cyia

01-03-2009, 05:37 AM

It's funny, but the closest thing to a "sex" talk I can remember outside of the health class film happened a in church youth group. I don't remember much of the detail (and their were details) he went into (yes it was a "he" and we were a co-ed bunch) except for one thing. While trying to make the point that some people's biology is more mature than their mentality he coated two sheets of brightly colored construction paper with glue then stuck them together. He let the glue dry for the activity period, then had two group members try and pull them apart. Of course it wasn't possible without transfering pieces of each page onto the other.

"Just remember that the two pieces can't go back to the way they were before. They don't always get destroyed, but they do always change."

I thought (and still do) that it was a perfect euphamism. No scare tactics about telling kids that sex = automatic disease/pregnancy, just a simple lesson in being prepared for something you can't take back.

kuwisdelu

01-03-2009, 07:05 AM

What kind of abstinence are we talking about?

Until the "right" guy?

Until marriage?

As for the latter, personally I think anyone who buys the car without test driving it is crazy. And not necessarily on the road to a particularly great driving experience.

Zoombie

01-03-2009, 07:17 AM

My mom says, "No sex before committed relationship"

My mom is wise, as always.

Also, I prefer the term "The unpleasantness in the mid 1800s" when referring to the Civil War.

Monkey

01-03-2009, 08:20 AM

As for parents, I am really curious how many really would have that serious and frank "talk" with their sexually mature teens? My parents, as open-minded as they are (and both in the medical fields), never talked to me about sex. I'd be surprised if many parents do. Now what?

I've talked with my 17-year-old about sex since he was ten. My stance with him is that unless he's ready to be a father, he'd better not have sex because condoms aren't 100% effective and if he fathers a child, he's a dad, end of story.

On the other hand, since he was about 15, I've been telling him that, IMO, he shouldn't marry a girl he hasn't slept with at least a couple of times. Sex is such a big part of marriage that I'd hate for him to marry someone that he wasn't compatible with in the sack. Seriously. IMO, you can make it work with just about anyone, but it's better to marry someone who really rocks your socks off.

So I'm actually a big PROPONENT of pre-marital sex, and my teenage son knows it. And yet he swears he's still a virgin...and based on his track record, our ability to talk frankly, and what he's admitted to doing, I have no reason to disbelieve him. Go figure. :D

Of course, I know that not all parents can do this. Too many people feel like sex is shameful or embarrassing or whatever. That's part of why I feel we need sex ed.

maestrowork

01-03-2009, 09:45 AM

Of course, I know that not all parents can do this. Too many people feel like sex is shameful or embarrassing or whatever. That's part of why I feel we need sex ed.

QFT.

Even with parents who can have the frank talk, I bet not all would demonstrate how to use a condom, explain the different types of contraception, describe each STDs, get into the clinical details. So even for these parents, some kind of sex ed with correct information and instructions may still be necessary.

aruna

01-03-2009, 01:18 PM

Exactly.

To put it more succinctly (and more controversially):

Faith means believing in something regardless of evidence.

Amendment needed: despite lack of [i]external [i/] evidence, ie empirical proof. My internal evidence is so strong, so overwhelming, so utterly irrefutable, I could walk through fire for it. The fact that I can't demonstrate it to anyone else doesn't nbother me in the least.
I can't speak for other people of faith, and sometimes I get the impression that some people only have faith because their parents or the Bible told them so, but I personally know many people who have been converted through similar "internal evidence".

My mom says, "No sex before committed relationship"

My mom is wise, as always.
.

That's the advice I gave my own children. I forgot to add, in my son's case, and please, please, wait at least till you are a teenager!!!

Because he WAS in a commited relationship, all right, but they were both 12, for goodness sakes!!! TWELVE!

I couldn't believe it when he told me that her parents allowed him to sleep in her bed when he spent the night there. When she came to spend the night at our place I'd always made her sleep in my daughter's room, and expected her parents would take their own precautions.

And then one morning he called me up secretly and in panic from her place, the condom had burst!!!! Help! What to do! She couldn't possibly tell her parents, she wanted a morning after pill, and I was to help them get it. I wanted her to speak to her parents, they had ALLOWED this for heaven's sake, but she refused, and so I had to drive her to a doctor's.

I can only say, some parents! That relationship lasted pretty long, though, for such young people, and it would have lasted longer but she broke up with him. It devastated him, and for a while he lost it; that was when his delinquwent phase began.

He had his wild phase with girls, but later decided I was right. It's quite encouraging to see a virile young man NOT taking advantage of his attractiveness, keeping himself out of the very promiscuous teenage scene we have in England, and actually being selective with women, waiting for a Miss Right.

Now he's been with someone for over a year, and I couldn't have picked a better woman myself, ideally suited to him and loves him very much. Looks like it will last.

My daughter never even dated. I was beginning to worry, even, but it didn't seem to bother her. She said teenage boys are too immature. Then she fell in love at first sight, and they've been together now a couple of months. I don't know him very well but it seems to be going wonderfully, with a trip to his parents in Paris planned for end of January. He's five years older than her; she's 18.

astonwest

01-03-2009, 04:36 PM

As for the latter, personally I think anyone who buys the car without test driving it is crazy.
Sort of puts the "trade her in for a newer model" line in context, I suppose...

Jenan Mac

01-03-2009, 05:12 PM

On the other hand, since he was about 15, I've been telling him that, IMO, he shouldn't marry a girl he hasn't slept with at least a couple of times. Sex is such a big part of marriage that I'd hate for him to marry someone that he wasn't compatible with in the sack. Seriously. IMO, you can make it work with just about anyone, but it's better to marry someone who really rocks your socks off.

Absolutely. Not to mention, I'd just as soon for my children not get married young just because they're really anxious to have sex. I was 37 when I got married the first (and thus far only) time. I'm not suggesting for a minute we should expect to have thirty-seven-year-old virgins walking around. If somebody wants to wait, that's up to them. But to say they should? Seems a bit pointless, IMO.

aruna

01-03-2009, 05:45 PM

scarletpeaches

01-03-2009, 09:22 PM

That could be because inexperienced people by their very nature don't know what it feels like.

Having had sex with varying degrees of success (!) I know how good it can be, and if I married a man without having slept with him first and he turned out to be...well, rubbish in bed...I'd be very disappointed.

I would want to be his lover, not his teacher.

Monkey

01-03-2009, 09:38 PM

Sex is a bigger issue for some people than for others. I entered my first marriage relatively inexperienced, and there was still some part of me wondering what else was out there.

Later, when I met a guy who I had a really strong attraction to, it was harder to stay faithful because I kept wondering what it would be like...yanno, if I was "missing" anything. I remained faithful.

But time passed, and my ex made it clear that he was having similar thoughts about other women. Things happened...I don't feel it necessary to go into details, but you get the idea...and the marriage didn't work.

Sex wasn't the only thing that kept the relationship from working, but it was a major thing. I had to sow a few wild oats, see what was out there, before I could settle down and really commit to just one person on a lifetime basis. And that one person had to be someone who really, really excited me.

Now I can be faithful, no problem, second thoughts, or wondering. I've had a sampling of what's out there and I'm sure that no one could ever be as perfect for me as the man I married. Especially now that we've been together over a decade, working out exactly what we each want.

IMO, premarital sex can make for a more secure marriage. For others, it may be different, but I'd be worse than a hypocrite to believe as I do and preach abstinence to my kids.

But see...here's where people with views like mine and views like CaptShady's can agree. Both of us figure it's good for kids to understand sex, but neither of us want sexual morals taught in the classroom. I don't want some teacher telling kids "Sure, it's natural," but I also don't want them told, "It's terrible and sinful to do it before marriage."

Then again, when it comes right down to it, I'd rather my kids be given the facts, even with someone else's morals placed on top of the curriculum, than to be told nothing. Sure, I talk to them, but I think it's good for them to hear the truth from more than one source. I also realize that they won't always take Mom's word for gospel. My voice is struggling to be heard above the pop culture din, and I'd love a few more to join in.

bethany

01-03-2009, 09:39 PM

rugcat

01-03-2009, 09:46 PM

I don't see any problem with not having sex until marriage; compatibility is only an issue if you make it one. It's more important to know that you really love that person. Sex doesn't have to be "perfect" for a marriage to work. IMO it's the inner harmony that counts; the outer will or should follow, and even if it doesn't, why is it such a huge deal? The idea of "test driving" doesn't work for me. Are you going to make that the keypin of the relationship?
Lots of people don't have sex before marriage (I'm referring mostly to non-Western societies here) and yet have great marriages.All you're really saying is that people are different. For some, a good sex life is crucial to a successful relationship; for some, other things are more important.

And it's not just a matter of how you were raised or what you were taught. Look at your two kids -- very different, were they not?

We sometimes like to view kids as empty templates upon which we can imprint our own values and beliefs. We see wonderful teens and attribute it to great parents and superior parenting skills. We see out of control or self destructive teens and attribute it to bad parenting.

But there is a core personality even in young children -- some are loving, some shy, some adventurous, some aggressive, some fearful. You can look at a family album and recognize the exact same facial expression of anger or wonder on the face of a two year old that you see on today's thirtysomething.

Successful parenting, imo, consists of guiding kids within the parameters of who they are, to help them become successful individuals according to their own lights. Those lights won't always be the same as yours.

And don't forget, there are wonderful kids who come out of neglectful and even abusive families, just as there are truly dreadful people who grew up with caring parents and every advantage in life as children.

Not everything is under our control, either in life or in parenting.

maestrowork

01-03-2009, 10:48 PM

For me, sexual compatibility is very important. I wouldn't say it trumps love, and with love you can probably endure a lot, even a dull or non-existent sex life. But why should I? I feel like I owe it myself to have a satisfying love life, and that includes a compatible partner. I've been with women with whom I just couldn't sexually connect. Now I don't mean sex is everything, but it is a very important part of MY adult life. Some people don't care about sex, and some very much do. Know yourself and know your partner. If you're very sexual and you're not compatible with your partner, I fear that there will be problems down the road when your love will be tested because of the physical intimacy stuff.

aruna

01-04-2009, 12:16 AM

All you're really saying is that people are different. For some, a good sex life is crucial to a successful relationship; for some, other things are more important.

.

Exactly. That was what I was trying to say. I was offering an alternative view to the conventional modern wisdom, and majority liberal opinion, that it is very important to sexually "test drive" a relationship before marriage. For some, it is not necessary or important, and I thought I ought to say that.

And I don't use the words "modern" and "liberal" as pejoratives here; that's how I brought up, but I am understanding towards conservative views as well.

aruna

01-04-2009, 12:24 AM

]

For me, sexual compatibility is very important. I wouldn't say it trumps love, and with love you can probably endure a lot, even a dull or non-existent sex life. But why should I? I feel like I owe it myself to have a satisfying love life, and that includes a compatible partner. I've been with women with whom I just couldn't sexually connect. Now I don't mean sex is everything, but it is a very important part of MY adult life. Some people don't care about sex, and some very much do. Know yourself and know your partner. If you're very sexual and you're not compatible with your partner, I fear that there will be problems down the road when your love will be tested because of the physical intimacy stuff.

But if you've found the love of your life, most probably there is an already an amazing chemisty between you in every respect, otherwise why would you want to marry them? There are people who simply trust and believe that, because their love is so strong, the sexual aspect will naturally fall into place. And they go into marriage believing in an almost mystical communion that will take place if they have waited so long for their physical union.

A few months ago I watched a TV programme, with my daughter, on those so-called chastity balls in America. I tried to keep an open mind throughout. And even though there were many aspects of the culture that i definitely found questionable, I did understand the actually philoposphy behind it, and I believe with the right people and the right attitude, waiting for marriage could be an incredible experience.

scarletpeaches

01-04-2009, 12:29 AM

Chastity Balls give me cooties.

The emphasis always seems to be on female virginity and that's not the only problem I have with 'em, but it's the main one.

Zoombie

01-04-2009, 12:38 AM

Where are the mother/son chastity balls?

Also, the reason behind female virginity is cause with a girl, its supposedly easier to tell. Also, they wanted to know that their sons were actually their sons so that said sons could get the right land way back in the dark ages when we were dying before we were 60 and marrying when we were 14.

Christine N.

01-04-2009, 12:56 AM

If men got pregnant, you'd BET there would be no discussions about whether or not sex ed needed to be taught.

kuwisdelu

01-04-2009, 01:42 AM

Sexual compatability is as important to you as sex is to you. If sex isn't important, then I guess it doesn't matter. If sex is very important, then it does. If sex is important to one partner but not to the other, then that's either tragically sad or else the recipe for divorce.

Exactly. That was what I was trying to say. I was offering an alternative view to the conventional modern wisdom, and majority liberal opinion, that it is very important to sexually "test drive" a relationship before marriage. For some, it is not necessary or important, and I thought I ought to say that.

As bethany points out, though, even when it isn't important to you, it could be very important to the other person. And that can easily lead to trouble. It's important to at least talk about what each partner expects of the other in the bedroom, and make sure there is compatibility there.

(On the other hand, if sex isn't important to one person to the point where they don't mind if the other sleeps around, that can work out just fine, too.)

People don't always know what they like until they've had some degree of experience.

But if you've found the love of your life, most probably there is an already an amazing chemisty between you in every respect, otherwise why would you want to marry them? There are people who simply trust and believe that, because their love is so strong, the sexual aspect will naturally fall into place.

The thing is when you think about it, that doesn't really make any sense.

It's perfectly possible to connect on every other level, yet still one person prefer vanilla and the other prefer chocolate. Or bondage. Or bondage with chocolate. :rolleyes: :D

scarletpeaches

01-04-2009, 01:44 AM

...It's perfectly possible to connect on every other level, yet still one person prefer vanilla and the other prefer chocolate. Or bondage. Or bondage with chocolate. :rolleyes: :D

If you're ever single again, gimme a call.

astonwest

01-04-2009, 03:54 AM

If men got pregnant, you'd BET there would be no discussions about whether or not sex ed needed to be taught.

:Huh:
Because, of course, pregnancy is the only thing that happens with sex. STDs and child support don't affect men...

Christine N.

01-04-2009, 03:56 AM

You know that was tongue in cheek, right, Aston?

Sorry, I guess I forgot the smiley :). Kind of like how if men got pregnant, the birth control pill would have come out 40 years ealier, or any of those jokes.

Just kidding! Sheesh.

maestrowork

01-04-2009, 06:08 AM

But if you've found the love of your life, most probably there is an already an amazing chemisty between you in every respect, otherwise why would you want to marry them? There are people who simply trust and believe that, because their love is so strong, the sexual aspect will naturally fall into place.

Not necessarily. I've been in long-term relationships, so it's not like I'm just pulling that one out of the hat. For people like myself, I wouldn't say poor sexual chemistry is a deal breaker, but it's pretty significant, and I would say, for certain, that a romantic chemistry doesn't always translate to a sexual chemistry. Some people are simply not sexually compatible. To get into MARRIAGE -- which is a lifetime commitment -- without knowing your sexual chemistry is a very big risk. I know couples who eventually split because they simply were not good together in bed; so that happens.

In that case, I'd rather people "test drive the car" first before buying. Saves a lot of grief later on.

Like others said, this reflects on if sex is important to you AND your partner or not. If not, then obviously the lack of sexual chemistry is not a real problem. But if it's important to one or both, then it could be a problem -- and putting everything in the "inner peace" and "true love solves everything" column is not going to be realistic. From your previous posts I think I can safely say that you don't view sex as important or even worthwhile in your life -- and there's nothing wrong with that; I know other people who feel the same way -- and if your husband is the same way, I would think it works out for you and your marriage. Also, age may have something to do with it -- but I would say it has more to do with personality and one's outlook in sex and love. I'm a very sexual person, so the issue with a sexually incompatible partner would be too great to overlook.

Zoombie

01-04-2009, 06:17 AM

I was thinking...if you're committed enough to marry, then you SHOULD be committed enough to have sex. Having sex involves WAY less money (about...30 bucks for good condoms and good lube as opposed to thousands for a dress and the ceremony) and WAY less legal stuff and its easier to pull out halfway if things go south.

So...I just don't understand why you'd wait for MARRIAGE. I'd wait for a lot of things! For commitment? Yes! For real love and not just a crush? Yes! For both of us to be comfortable with getting nekked? Yes! For the other person to decide that its true love and not just a crush and so on? Again. Yes.

But marriage...I don't see why one would wait...it counfounds me.

scarletpeaches

01-04-2009, 06:19 AM

Thing is, in Ye Olden Days...that's what made you married, the consummation. All the legal details (who gets the land, whose family they live with) was sorted out during the engagement, and then the husband/fiance 'took his wife home' and it became known in the community they were now husband and wife. It was the initial act of sexual congress that made them married, not exchanging vows before a congregation.

Zoombie

01-04-2009, 06:21 AM

Huh...more interesting facts from the Penguin Who Quotes Joker.

So, are you saying that really, marriage ceremonies SHOULD involve an orgy of some kind?

That'd make for better marriages, I'd say...

scarletpeaches

01-04-2009, 06:23 AM

Well, no. Not quite. ;)

Just that 'sex before marriage' compared to Ye Olden Times of Yore would be irrelevant. Sex before marriage would mean...sorry dude, but now you are married. The two were indivisible.

I'm not sure I mentioned orgies, either, but you're probably too shocked at me posting something serious to believe that. :D

Zoombie

01-04-2009, 06:25 AM

Nah, I'm just in a decidedly silly mood.

Love and silliness go hand in hand, I think. Look at me: a neurotic virgin who constantly tells himself that sex isn't the be all end all to a relationship, and yet constantly thinks about/hoping for it. And yet, when a potential threesome rolls into my lap, I push it away, cause the girl in question is NOT my girlfriend, even through countless fantasies of mine involve random spontaneity threesomes!

Whats not silly about that?

Phoebe H

01-04-2009, 06:25 AM

So, are you saying that really, marriage ceremonies SHOULD involve an orgy of some kind?

Any ceremony, really. Weddings, funerals, graduations. Spelling bees.

Orgies are kind of an all-around ceremony-improver.

maestrowork

01-04-2009, 07:09 AM

And what if you never get married? Or if you marry late... Shoot, I'm screwed (and not in a good way). I'd have gone to my grave a virgin....

Personally, I think people put too much emphasis and hang-ups in sex, as if it's the most sacred thing in the world and should be treated with a plastic glove. There is so much guilt and shame associated with sex, it's unbelievable. To me, sex is only sacred in a sense that it's a gift from God. Your body is not a dirty thing. It's beautiful. And sex is beautiful, not dirty and ugly. So enjoy the gift, not with guilt and shame, but with responsibility and appreciation.

No, I'm not saying we should go out and have sex with anyone you can find on the street. There are consequences such as unwanted pregnancy, STDs, or feelings getting hurt, etc. And I do think it's an intimate act that should be reserved for people who, at the very least, genuinely like and respect each other. But outside of that, it is NOT the "prize" of a relationship, and shouldn't be treated as such. It's just one facet and aspect of any relationships, whether it's just after two dates or in a marriage. Some people even go so far to use sex as a weapon or bargain -- that's just ridiculous, and an utter waste of time.

Ciera_

01-04-2009, 07:15 AM

*Thinks of all the spelling bees that could have been more interesting*

aruna

01-04-2009, 11:16 AM

People don't always know what they like until they've had some degree of experience.

..................................

The thing is when you think about it, that doesn't really make any sense.

It's perfectly possible to connect on every other level, yet still one person prefer vanilla and the other prefer chocolate. Or bondage. Or bondage with chocolate. :rolleyes: :D

There's a major misunderstanding here, and that's because you're taking yourself and your attitude as the gold standard. But it's not. For me, and many other people I know, the question of "what I like and what you like", preferring vanilla or chocolate, is completely irrelevant. From our point of view sex is simply the outer expression of an inner certitude, a compete emotional giving of oneself to the other; the actual body positions or technicalities are secondary. It's the emotional, spiritual connection, the complete intimacy, that counts. It's very hard to put this into words, and what I said above doesn't come near to what I mean. Dammit. I'm a lousy writer!

There is so much guilt and shame associated with sex, it's unbelievable. To me, sex is only sacred in a sense that it's a gift from God. Your body is not a dirty thing. It's beautiful. And sex is beautiful, not dirty and ugly. So enjoy the gift, not with guilt and shame, but with responsibility and appreciation.

IMO (always IMO!) shame and guilt actually serve an important function; sometimes shame is a warning, a tap on the shoulder from a person's conscience that he or she is behaving beneath their worth. That they were not true to themselves.

Sex is not ONLY beautiful. It can be ugly, dirty, sleazy, greedy. If you've made the mistake of having it with someone who treats you like dirt then shame and guilt is a natural, and good, reaction: how could I have let that jerk get near me! But not in order to wallow in shame, and run around with hanging head for the rest of one's life, but in order to stand up and say, never again; to maybe reassess one's life and change it radically. Shame could provide a EUREKA moment, the decision to make sure that sex is ALWAYS beautiful. And then it can even be sacred. Maybe not the most sacred thing in the world, as you say, but a sacred act of loving and giving.

And yes, I know that not everyone wants it this way; but some indeed do, for reasons of their own. And they have as much right to as those who want it as casual as a handshake.

Phoebe H

01-04-2009, 12:38 PM

For me, and many other people I know, the question of "what I like and what you like", preferring vanilla or chocolate, is completely irrelevant. From our point of view sex is simply the outer expression of an inner certitude, a compete emotional giving of oneself to the other; the actual body positions or technicalities are secondary. It's the emotional, spiritual connection, the complete intimacy, that counts. It's very hard to put this into words, and what I said above doesn't come near to what I mean. Dammit. I'm a lousy writer!

No, I know exactly what you meant, and I think you expressed it quite well.

The thing is -- and I admit that my circumstances are unusual enough as to be a special case -- I have had this same deep, abiding, spiritual intimacy with someone, only to have them later find my body abhorrent. (Which word is, if anything, too mild.) I would not wish that experience on my worst enemy.

If there is any doubt at all, it is better to know beforehand. There are things that even the most sacred connection can not get you through.

Zoombie

01-04-2009, 12:53 PM

I point to the above post as the explanation of one of my deepest fears. I know its...probably silly...but...

Its...still scary as heck >_<

astonwest

01-04-2009, 05:18 PM

You know that was tongue in cheek, right, Aston?

Sorry, I guess I forgot the smiley
The smiley would have helped. ;)

Monkey

01-04-2009, 07:22 PM

I just think that when you're looking for someone to spend the rest of your life with, there's no reason why you shouldn't have it all.

I do believe a deep, spiritual connection is wonderful in a marriage...even though I've seen them work without it. I believe that your mate should be someone good for you emotionally, and you for them; you should make each other happy. Then again, I've seen couples that love each other but really get on each other's nerves if they're together too much. Great sex is another huge plus, but there are people who don't need it...a woman I used to work with said she and her husband hadn't had sex in years and she was fine with that.

This is why you need to really get to know someone before you marry them. You need to know what is important to each of you in a marriage. Personally, I need each of the three things listed above and more. But someone else's list would be different. If you marry someone who needs the same things you do, you've got a much better chance than if you'd married someone whose expectations you'll never meet (or who would never meet yours).

I don't think that these different expectations should in any way effect the availability of Sex Ed. Someone who doesn't feel they need sex as a high school student may change their mind later on, may fall for someone for whom it is important, or may eventually decide have sex despite not having a huge drive for it. They still need to know the technical aspects, and knowing can still save their lives. It's still vitally important.

scarletpeaches

01-04-2009, 07:45 PM

...a woman I used to work with said she and her husband hadn't had sex in years and she was fine with that.

Was he?

Captshady

01-04-2009, 08:01 PM

a woman I used to work with said she and her husband hadn't had sex in years and she was fine with that.

I guess if they, as a couple, found some other way to be intimate, that's up to them. Marriage, sans intimacy, is just a room mate IMO.

I don't think that these different expectations should in any way effect the availability of Sex Ed. Someone who doesn't feel they need sex as a high school student may change their mind later on, may fall for someone for whom it is important, or may eventually decide have sex despite not having a huge drive for it. They still need to know the technical aspects, and knowing can still save their lives. It's still vitally important.

IMO that's it, in a nutshell. That's why these pledges don't work. Those signing are probably intent on keeping their virginity until marriage, but those signing probably at that point in their lives have felt strong love met with strong hormones.

Clair Dickson

01-04-2009, 08:25 PM

My unrelated thought-- who's business is it whether you decide to have sex before, after, or during your marriage/ committed relationship/ etc. Aside from your partner(s) is it anyone else's business? If you want to tell everyone, that's fine, but I don't particularly care to know who is having sex, who isn't-- especially of casual acquaintances.

The thing that bothers me with these pledges is the idea that sex is inherently wrong and that they are used in lieu of actual sexual education. Teens will not be teens for ever and there aren't any "refresher" or adult sex ed classes so that when a person feels they are ready for sex (whether it's in marriage or not) they can have an good time without many/ any worries about disease or pregnancy.

Sex is a very personal choice. You want to pledge abstinence, fine, but why advertise it? Oh yeah, to show you're better than the immoral ones around you. Note: I think sex is great and intended to be enjoyed. I'm just speculating why so many pledgers advertise their choice. It's cultural. I told no one what my choice was-- except Hubby. I wasn't having sex with anyone else. I also don't tell the world when I'm on my period or when I'm horny either.

As for sexual compatibility, I think it's part truth and part myth. If you don't talk about sexual desires, it's really going to be a crap-shoot as to whether both parties will be and stay satisfied. In theory, there should be compromise in the bed as well as in the kitchen. People with different desires CAN live happily together, so long as they make sure to take care of the other. But, I married the first and only person I've had sex with, so maybe my stance is unreliable.

maestrowork

01-04-2009, 09:52 PM

IMO (always IMO!) shame and guilt actually serve an important function; sometimes shame is a warning, a tap on the shoulder from a person's conscience that he or she is behaving beneath their worth. That they were not true to themselves.

IMO, shame and guilt are useless and harmful and hindering. Much of our existing religions operate on shame or guilt or both... it does nothing but hinder people and make them live in constant fear and guilt. What a waste.

Nothing is beneath anyone's worth. Life isn't a number game -- you don't get points by being good and lose points for being bad. Life is all about experiences, good, bad, ugly, nice. And mistakes. There's no shame in making mistakes, because they, too, make us who we are. It's no surprise that those who live in shame and guilt often have the lowest self-worth and self-esteem, who believe they should be punished for what they do in life. People with good self-esteem would brush off a bad experience as a learning experience and move on. No shame or guilt -- it just wasn't for them, so they wouldn't do it again.

The flip side is that shame and guilt hinders people from getting what they really want and being who they really are. "Oh, the Bible says being gay is wrong and you should be shameful and you will burn in Hell." How many lives do you think that kind of shame and guilt has ruined? How many people live in fear and shame and guilt by living a lie their entire lives? How many people use shame and guilt as weapons to hurt, control, and disable others?

Nothing good could come out of shame and guilt. They're useless or harmful.

Sex is beautiful. It's the people who abuse others that make it ugly. Sex is not ugly by itself. The same acts between two people who respect and enjoy each other could become ugly and nasty if forced upon someone else. And for those who couldn't enjoy sex even with their partners, it isn't the sex that is the problem, but the person -- chances are, that person believes sex is indeed ugly and disgusting and shameful, even with someone he or she loves. When that person can't reconcile the body, mind and soul, something is amiss, and the whole "sex is ugly" thing is just a manifestation of that disconnect.

Don't ever confuse caution, responsibilities, finding one's true wants, or even grief and regrets with guilt or shame. Least of all feeling shameful and guilty about our bodies and sex. It's God's gift, so why are we ashamed of something God gave us?

kuwisdelu

01-05-2009, 01:35 AM

As for sexual compatibility, I think it's part truth and part myth. If you don't talk about sexual desires, it's really going to be a crap-shoot as to whether both parties will be and stay satisfied. In theory, there should be compromise in the bed as well as in the kitchen. People with different desires CAN live happily together, so long as they make sure to take care of the other. But, I married the first and only person I've had sex with, so maybe my stance is unreliable.

Err depends...if I married someone who was into Hot Carls and I didn't know about this until afterward...I wouldn't exactly be ecstatic, since that is one fetish I'm not very willing to indulge. I'm sure there are more sexually conservative spouses who would be similarly squicked by their partner wanting something as simple as light bondage or s&m.

Do most abstinence only programs teach abstinence until marriage or commitment?