Sex Education vs. Wisconsin

icerose · Apr 9, 2010

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sex_ed_wisconsin

This is just in Wisconsin but I think it lays out the bigger problem we have in the US.

Southworth warned that teaching a student how to properly use contraceptives would be contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars and a $10,000 fine. He said it would be promoting sex among minors who are not legally allowed to have sex in Wisconsin.

Here's the first point. The DA has threatened teachers that if they teach a student how to protect themselves during sex, it's criminal.

This is what happens to the kids if they do have sex.

In Wisconsin, children under age 17 who have sex with each other can be prosecuted as juveniles. Seventeen-year-olds who have sex with one another can be convicted as adults of a misdemeanor.

Yet they still struggle with high pregnancy rates. So here's my take on it.

Teenagers are going to have sex whether us adults waggle our finger at them or not. And prosecuting them for it is mind boggling. Save the prosecutions for true rape.

Our teenagers are soon going to be adults. Eventually they will have sex. If they don't learn how to protect themselves and prevent pregnancy when they don't want it, how exactly are they going to be well prepared for the day they do eventually have sex? They aren't going to abstinent forever and their first (maybe even life) partner might not have practiced safe sex and could put them in danger even if they abstained all the way to the life partner. On top of it they need to know there are choices with birth control IMO.

I personally think sex education and protection and birth control should come at least the age of 12. I say that because I had a friend who got pregnant at 12. If she had a better education of what she was doing, the consequences, and how to prevent it, I don't think she would have. She did get her life back on track, but she came close to being a single mother and a drop out if it hadn't been for her aunt taking her in and setting rules.

I know people who had sex and didn't even know it was sex and didn't even know that's how babies were born. I know grown women who don't even know that their ovaries cycle and when they are ovulating that's when they can get pregnant.

I don't think knowledge is dangerous and these laws on the books that make it illegal with real consequences if young people follow their hormones is mind boggling, especially with the level of parental disconnect going on today. I'd personally rather see a low to no teen pregnancy rate due to proper education, than a high pregnancy rate so we can wrap ourselves in the cloth of righteousness and wag our fingers at the "deviants".

I do believe they should wait. I'm a prude, I admit it. I fully acknowledge though that telling the youth "just wait" doesn't work either. There are those who will choose, but the rest of them should have the benefits of going out into the world and through this exploration phase fully informed of the consequences of their actions and the tools at their fingertips. It's their health, their body, they're going to be adults soon, why can't we educate them so they can make the best decisions of whatever they're going to choose to make?

What do you all think?

Don · Apr 9, 2010

I think you nailed it 100%. It is the purpose of education to educate. It is not the purpose of the state to legislate morality. This case, and cases such as civil rights for minorities, same-sex marriage, separation of church and state (harsh example: polygamy), and the drug war are inexorably linked. We deny that at the peril of all rights, if we make any of them subject to popular vote.

Good luck selling that to the politicians and their constituents, though.

Romantic Heretic · Apr 9, 2010

I think someone's planning a run for governor. Pity he's using kids health, safety and futures to do it.

Williebee · Apr 9, 2010

So, if I teach my minor child the correct way to use contraceptives, am I contributing to the delinquency of a minor?

My guess is that Mr. Southworth has jumped on a unique political opportunity. If he publicly argues this position he looks good to his base and, whichever way it turns out, he has a ready scapegoat in the legislature.

It's kind of a: "You gave me this hammer (law) and the position that lets me use it as much as I want to." Which, in a twisted way, may be the same logic behind his position of not teaching kids how to use contraceptives. weird.

Don · Apr 9, 2010

Williebee said:
It's kind of a: "You gave me this hammer (law) and the position that lets me use it as much as I want to." Which, in a twisted way, may be the same logic behind his position of not teaching kids how to use contraceptives. weird.

Exactly. We (the people) need to stop indiscriminately handing out hammers for people to beat us with.

Roger J Carlson · Apr 9, 2010

Don said:
I think you nailed it 100%. It is the purpose of education to educate. It is not the purpose of the state to legislate morality. This case, and cases such as civil rights for minorities, same-sex marriage, separation of church and state (harsh example: polygamy), and the drug war are inexorably linked. We deny that at the peril of all rights, if we make any of them subject to popular vote.

Good luck selling that to the politicians and their constituents, though.

One might also argue, however, that the sex education is in fact a moral issue and should be taught at home and not in school. Teaching condom use to children whose parents believe in abstenance violates their right to raise their children by their ethical values. There is absolutely nothing stopping parents who believe children should be taught condom use from teaching their own children.

Romantic Heretic · Apr 9, 2010

Unfortunately everything is a weapon in some way.

Williebee · Apr 9, 2010

One might also argue, however, that the sex education is in fact a moral issue and should be taught at home and not in school. Teaching condom use to children whose parents believe in abstenance violates their right to raise their children by their ethical values. There is absolutely nothing stopping parents who believe children should be taught condom use from teaching their own children.

I agree with this completely. The unfortunate reality is that many, if not most parents today aren't doing that. In at least some cases it is because they never learned it from their parents. (I work in regional education programs, btw.)

Would you agree that this lack of education, regardless of the source it should have come from, has a negative impact on society at large? And, if so, what are the most likely alternatives to fix it? How do we motivate and teach parents to teach their kids, for example?

icerose · Apr 9, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
One might also argue, however, that the sex education is in fact a moral issue and should be taught at home and not in school. Teaching condom use to children whose parents believe in abstenance violates their right to raise their children by their ethical values. There is absolutely nothing stopping parents who believe children should be taught condom use from teaching their own children.

There is always the opt out clause. Problem is most parents are not bothering to even teach their children the basics of if a boy's part goes in a the girl part the girl risks getting pregnant (among many other things).

I think we should have a solid sex education in place, and have days where notes will be sent home at the beginning of the year saying, this is what we're covering, this is why, to opt out of specific things, please sign on the lines below and state your reasons why you don't wish your son/daughter to attend.

Then on those specific days when the condom is being taught, they would be pulled into the library instead. Is it really that insurmountable?

Roger J Carlson · Apr 9, 2010

Williebee said:
I agree with this completely. The unfortunate reality is that many, if not most parents today aren't doing that. In at least some cases it is because they never learned it from their parents. (I work in regional education programs, btw.)

Would you agree that this lack of education, regardless of the source it should have come from, has a negative impact on society at large? And, if so, what are the most likely alternatives to fix it? How do we motivate and teach parents to teach their kids, for example?

Well, I quoted Don's post specifically because he is most often of the opinion that the impact on society at large does not over-ride the rights of the individual.

I would not agree, however, that lack of education in and of itself is the reason for increased teen pregnancy. In years past there was absolutely no public (and little private) sex education and the teen pregnancy rate was much, much lower. (Yes, I know many weren't reported or were hidden away, but I think we can agree that the actual rates really were much lower.)

I think the increased rate has less to do with education (or its lack) than with the increased acceptance of it in society over all. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. The ostricization of unwed mothers was a terrible thing. (Not to mention the gender-based inequity). However, the result is that many are more willing to risk it today (or at least not fear the consequences) than in times past.

Now before someone brings up an extreme example (ie: what if people want to raise their children to be ax murders...), obviously, parents can't teach their children to break the law. But as far as I can see, abstinence is not yet a crime.

Roger J Carlson · Apr 9, 2010

icerose said:
There is always the opt out clause. Problem is most parents are not bothering to even teach their children the basics of if a boy's part goes in a the girl part the girl risks getting pregnant (among many other things).

I think we should have a solid sex education in place, and have days where notes will be sent home at the beginning of the year saying, this is what we're covering, this is why, to opt out of specific things, please sign on the lines below and state your reasons why you don't wish your son/daughter to attend.

Then on those specific days when the condom is being taught, they would be pulled into the library instead. Is it really that insurmountable?

Why not an opt-in clause, instead? Why must parents take an active step to prevent their children from being taught something they disapprove of? Pulling children out of a class would leave them open to ridicule by their peers, whereas signing students up for a specific elective class carries no stigma.

Smish · Apr 9, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
Why not an opt-in clause, instead? Why must parents take an active step to prevent their children from being taught something they disapprove of? Pulling children out of a class would leave them open to ridicule by their peers, whereas signing students up for a specific elective class carries no stigma.

Because kids need to be educated. Period. Sexually transmitted diseases are definitely on the rise among teenagers.

If someone feels strongly that their child should not be educated, they don't have to sign the permission slip.

And the kid most likely won't be ridiculed; they'll simply say, "You know how lame my parents are...", while they're having unprotected sex in the band room.

(And if you're one of those parents, I'm not saying you're lame. But your kid probably does.)

Don · Apr 9, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
Well, I quoted Don's post specifically because he is most often of the opinion that the impact on society at large does not over-ride the rights of the individual.

I would not agree, however, that lack of education in and of itself is the reason for increased teen pregnancy. In years past there was absolutely no public (and little private) sex education and the teen pregnancy rate was much, much lower. (Yes, I know many weren't reported or were hidden away, but I think we can agree that the actual rates really were much lower.)

I think the increased rate has less to do with education (or its lack) than with the increased acceptance of it in society over all. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. The ostricization of unwed mothers was a terrible thing. (Not to mention the gender-based inequity). However, the result is that many are more willing to risk it today (or at least not fear the consequences) than in times past.

Now before someone brings up an extreme example (ie: what if people want to raise their children to be ax murders...), obviously, parents can't teach their children to break the law. But as far as I can see, abstinence is not yet a crime.

I agree that the impact on society at large does not over-ride the rights of the individual. I fully support de-monopolization of public education. However, as long as the educational system is held in "public trust" I will always argue for the presentation of the best possible information by that system. I also agree that some form of opt-in would be preferable to forcing that information down anyone's throats contrary to their belief system.

icerose · Apr 9, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
Why not an opt-in clause, instead? Why must parents take an active step to prevent their children from being taught something they disapprove of? Pulling children out of a class would leave them open to ridicule by their peers, whereas signing students up for a specific elective class carries no stigma.

Because I think it's too important of a subject to require parents to act for kids to get the benefit of it. I know of more than a few kids who had to call their kids for field trips to get permission slips signed so they could go after three had been sent home and the school had contacted them many times.

Roger J Carlson · Apr 9, 2010

Smish said:
Because kids need to be educated. Period. Sexually transmitted diseases are definitely on the rise among teenagers.

Presumes education will prevent this. There is a difference of opinion on that point.

And the kid most likely won't be ridiculed;

As someone who was ridiculed in school for his religious beliefs, I'd have to disagree.

Roger J Carlson · Apr 9, 2010

icerose said:
Because I think it's too important of a subject to require parents to act for kids to get the benefit of it. I know of more than a few kids who had to call their kids for field trips to get permission slips signed so they could go after three had been sent home and the school had contacted them many times.

So your opinion is more important than the rights of parents? Sadly, even parents who have no interest in raising their children have the right to do so.

icerose · Apr 9, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
So your opinion is more important than the rights of parents? Sadly, even parents who have no interest in raising their children have the right to do so.

No, with the opt-out system a signed paper one way or the other would have to be required in the student records so that it would absolutely give every parent the chance to have a full say. They do this with the computer and media policy. This would be in case they missed or forgot or didn't turn in that specific paper, then there would be no assumption.

Just because there is an opt out or opt in system doesn't mean one opinion is more important than the other. I just think it needs to have the best chance at succeeding and reaching as many kids as possible.

Williebee · Apr 9, 2010

I think the increased rate has less to do with education (or its lack) than with the increased acceptance of it in society over all.

My argument is that this "increased acceptance" is a result of education. Education isn't an 8-3 experience. It isn't a public school vs. private school vs. home school vs. at home discussion.

Kids will learn. Period. What they learn and where they learn it is up to us.

I do like the idea of an "opt-in" program. Although, if it is done outside of school hours it creates a different range of obstacles. (Even so, it would seem to be worth trying.)

And, if it is done during school hours, it becomes a defacto "opt out".

I'd also be in favor of evening presentations, by the teachers TO parents, of the exact same class that is going to be presented to the kids. Perhaps followed up by the opportunity for parents to "opt out" for their kids. This would be challenging, and bring most of the same obstacles as trying to get kids to attend the after school class (albeit this time with the parents) and could really train wreck. It would still be worth a try, imo.

veinglory · Apr 9, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
Why not an opt-in clause, instead? .

Because completely unresponsive, potentially non-literate parents living in hazardous areasnthe teachers don't want to visit for verbal consent most need to have ther kids opted in.

kuwisdelu · Apr 9, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
One might also argue, however, that the sex education is in fact a moral issue and should be taught at home and not in school. Teaching condom use to children whose parents believe in abstenance violates their right to raise their children by their ethical values. There is absolutely nothing stopping parents who believe children should be taught condom use from teaching their own children.

I don't see how teaching children how to use protection prevents anyone from also teaching them abstinence. Owning a rain coat doesn't mean you're obligated to go outside during a thunderstorm.

It's important knowledge. No one has to have sex just because they know how to use a condom.

Smish · Apr 9, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
Presumes education will prevent this. There is a difference of opinion on that point.

As someone who was ridiculed in school for his religious beliefs, I'd have to disagree.

Sure, kids may be ridiculed for their beliefs, but that's a different issue. It's not because they opted out of one class; it's because they're different. Personally, I applaud kids who are brave enough to be openly different, but high school is brutal, and sure, they're likely to be riduculed. (And anyway, why should the beliefs of one determine the education of all?)

And yes, when it comes to teenagers, sex education is useful. Teens have that feeling of invincibility: it ain't gonna happen to me. They need to be hit over the head with a strong dose of reality before it DOES happen to them.

Teenagers experiment. The majority of them smoke, drink alocohol, and have sex before reaching 18. They're going to do these things whether schools have education programs covering them or not. But knowledge is power, and at least they may THINK about their actions before doing them.

BenPanced · Apr 9, 2010

kuwisdelu said:
I don't see how teaching children how to use protection prevents anyone from also teaching them abstinence. Owning a rain coat doesn't mean you're obligated to go outside during a thunderstorm.

It's important knowledge. No one has to have sex just because they know how to use a condom.

And this is different from an abstinence only program. Here, it's presented as one of the options.

Roger J Carlson · Apr 9, 2010

Williebee said:
I do like the idea of an "opt-in" program. Although, if it is done outside of school hours it creates a different range of obstacles. (Even so, it would seem to be worth trying.)

And, if it is done during school hours, it becomes a defacto "opt out".

Disagree. It becomes an elective class like home economics or shop. Electives by their very nature are opt-in.

icerose · Apr 9, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
Disagree. It becomes an elective class like home economics or shop. Electives by their very nature are opt-in.

I think it should be more like a vaccination. Required unless parents opt out.

Smish · Apr 9, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
Disagree. It becomes an elective class like home economics or shop. Electives by their very nature are opt-in.

I'd actually be okay with it being an elective, as long as it was scheduled at times convenient for every student's schedule. Generally, sex education programs last a few days at most, but a semester-long class that fully explores sex throughout the world would be a great class.

Sex Education vs. Wisconsin

Lost in School Work

All Living is Local

uncoerced

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

All Living is Local

Moderator In Name Only

uncoerced

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Lost in School Work

Moderator In Name Only

Moderator In Name Only

Reads more than she writes.

All Living is Local

Lost in School Work

Moderator In Name Only

Moderator In Name Only

Lost in School Work

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

volitare nequeo

Revolutionize the World

Reads more than she writes.

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

Moderator In Name Only

Lost in School Work

Reads more than she writes.