# Teens And Sex



## MJS (Aug 16, 2010)

Thought this was an interesting article.



> Think your high school senior hasn't had sex?
> 
> Think again.
> 
> ...


 
And this is why, in past discussion, on similar topics, I've suggested that the best thing for parents and teachers to do, is provide a) proper education and b) methods of birthcontrol.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 16, 2010)

MJS said:


> And this is why, in past discussion, on similar topics, I've suggested that the best thing for parents and teachers to do, is provide a) proper education and b) methods of birthcontrol.



Parents yes, teachers no.

The state has a valid interest in some aspects of sexual behavior.  However, the root issue is morality, which is the domain of the parents.


----------



## MJS (Aug 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Parents yes, teachers no.
> 
> The state has a valid interest in some aspects of sexual behavior. However, the root issue is morality, which is the domain of the parents.


 
IIRC, sex ed is taught in the majority, if not all public schools.  While I normally agree with what you're saying, ie: that parents should raise their kids accordingly, I'd wager a guess and say that this topic, sex, is a taboo subject in some households.  In that case, then I think it may be safe to say that if there is no education, then the 'experimenting' that the kids will most likely do, could lead to a baby.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 16, 2010)

MJS said:


> IIRC, sex ed is taught in the majority, if not all public schools.  While I normally agree with what you're saying, ie: that parents should raise their kids accordingly, I'd wager a guess and say that this topic, sex, is a taboo subject in some households.  In that case, then I think it may be safe to say that if there is no education, then the 'experimenting' that the kids will most likely do, could lead to a baby.



I agree with you that most parents abdicate.  That doesn't make it the job of the state to do.

I understand that it's a gray area.  The state definitely has a vested interest in public health issues, and it will have more of an interest in times to come, what with socialized medicine taking hold.  However, in issues of parent's rights versus the rights of the state, I tend to sway towards parents.  It bothers me that so many parents are booger-eatin' morons, but that is the danger of a free society.


----------



## MJS (Aug 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree with you that most parents abdicate. That doesn't make it the job of the state to do.
> 
> I understand that it's a gray area. The state definitely has a vested interest in public health issues, and it will have more of an interest in times to come, what with socialized medicine taking hold. However, in issues of parent's rights versus the rights of the state, I tend to sway towards parents. It bothers me that so many parents are booger-eatin' morons, but that is the danger of a free society.


 
If the state shouldn't do it and the parents dont, who educates kids on safe sex?  Trial and error?  Hope that one day, the parents will talk about it?  

As much as we may hate to admit it, the state does dictate alot of what we can/can't do.  Unless we all pack up, and move to some island in the middle of nowhere, where we can rule as we please, someone's going to be telling us what to do.  

If a parent opts to not tell their kids about anything until they're high school age, thats fine.  If a parent is living back in the old days, and thinks that everyone stays 'pure' until marriage, thats fine too.  But reality is, is that times change, whether parents like it or not.  That seems, to me anyways, to be the focus of the article.


----------



## LoneRider (Aug 16, 2010)

> Parents yes, teachers no.
> 
> The state has a valid interest in some aspects of sexual behavior. However, the root issue is morality, which is the domain of the parents.



Devil's advocate here: but what if the parents are incompetent or of questionable morality?


----------



## MJS (Aug 16, 2010)

LoneRider said:


> Devil's advocate here: but what if the parents are incompetent or of questionable morality?


 
Good point.  Page 2 of the article has a section titled, "Parents in outer space' which applies to what you just said.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Parents yes, teachers no.
> 
> The state has a valid interest in some aspects of sexual behavior. However, the root issue is morality, which is the domain of the parents.


 
The way I see it, sex ed courses and providing birth control methods is the least invasive means of the state addressing 2 valid concerns: student health and teen pregnancies.  The alternatives I can think of would be 1) the state monitoring student activities outside school property; 2) the state interfering with family affairs at home to ensure parents are doing their jobs, or 3) continuing with abstinance-only "do nothing" policies.  Compared to those, providing education on birth control (or even directly providing the birth control) seems far less intrusive and far less judgmental.  

And I dont think it's really about morality; the state's proper concern would be reducing teen pregnancie and protecting student health, not instilling certain personal or religious values that parents are failling to do at home.  I agree that we should leave judgments of right or wrong to families to instill, but judgment isn't the purpose of these programs.


----------



## MBuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Wait wait....silly question here - but who's morality?  A few have said that it is a question of morality, but having sex isn't a moral issue.  Rape and unwanted sex is a moral issue, but it isn't WRONG to have sex, it is impractical and a bad idea, but it isn't WRONG.

Then there's the "Well, if you have sex before marriage then it is immoral," except, if that is your argument, then this is a different discussion.  Because now we're not talking abotu just teens anymore.


Bottom line, I don't think teens should be having sex, but I'm going to educate my kid on it and if he is, make sure that he has protection and does it intelligently.  I feel that is my responsibility, but I'm also glad that it is taught in school.  There are plenty of kids whose parents ARE NOT responsible and won't teach them and those kids that get born to teen parents are going to have disadvantaged lives due to it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 16, 2010)

MJS said:


> If the state shouldn't do it and the parents dont, who educates kids on safe sex?



See, that's the problem.  If the parents won't, then the state must.

No.  If the parents won't, then it doesn't get done.  Period.

That sucks when you want a well-ordered society that doesn't have rampant teen pregnancy and STD's running wild.  But do we have a free society or don't we?



> As much as we may hate to admit it, the state does dictate alot of what we can/can't do.  Unless we all pack up, and move to some island in the middle of nowhere, where we can rule as we please, someone's going to be telling us what to do.



We all give up absolute freedom in order to live voluntarily in a society that has laws that protect us all.  But those laws in the USA are built within a frame work of civil liberties upon which the government may not infringe.

In other words, just because the government has a vested interest in certain behavior, and just because the parents who should do it refuse to do it, that does not pass authority into the hands of the government.

Take vaccinations.  It's a societal health issue, and for the most part, parents have to get their kids vaccinated.  However, if they refuse, all the schools can do is refuse to admit the child.  They cannot take the child and force a vaccination on them against the will of the parent.

Yet the state can force a child to receive a sexual education that the parent may not agree with, and provide a child with things like condoms and instructions on how to use them in direct defiance with a parent's wishes?



> If a parent opts to not tell their kids about anything until they're high school age, thats fine.  If a parent is living back in the old days, and thinks that everyone stays 'pure' until marriage, thats fine too.  But reality is, is that times change, whether parents like it or not.  That seems, to me anyways, to be the focus of the article.



Times do change, but basic civil liberties do not, or at least not based on the current zeitgeist.

Today we say OK, sex ed is a good thing and benefits society, so if the parents won't do it, we're going to give it to them in school, like it or not.

Then tomorrow we say OK, heart disease kills more Americans than anything else, and we all have to pay the bill for those insurance costs, so guess what?  No more red meat, you fat bastard.  You *will* exercise for several hours per day, under pain of arrest.  You'll have to check in at the local police department daily to have your card signed to prove you did it.

When we start giving rights away based on what's good for us, we agree to live in a totalitarian society.  If not immediately, then soon.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 16, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> Bottom line, I don't think teens should be having sex, but I'm going to educate my kid on it and if he is, make sure that he has protection and does it intelligently.  I feel that is my responsibility, but I'm also glad that it is taught in school.  There are plenty of kids whose parents ARE NOT responsible and won't teach them and those kids that get born to teen parents are going to have disadvantaged lives due to it.



There are also plenty of parents who do not want the school to teach their child about sex.  For whatever reason.  We tend to see our own point of view as the 'reasonable' one, but the fact is, parents get to decide what they want to teach their child about a variety of things, including sex.  Their rights must be protected if your rights are protected.  Just giving rights to reasonable parents isn't freedom at all.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 16, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> The way I see it, sex ed courses and providing birth control methods is the least invasive means of the state addressing 2 valid concerns: student health and teen pregnancies.  The alternatives I can think of would be 1) the state monitoring student activities outside school property; 2) the state interfering with family affairs at home to ensure parents are doing their jobs, or 3) continuing with abstinance-only "do nothing" policies.  Compared to those, providing education on birth control (or even directly providing the birth control) seems far less intrusive and far less judgmental.
> 
> And I dont think it's really about morality; the state's proper concern would be reducing teen pregnancie and protecting student health, not instilling certain personal or religious values that parents are failling to do at home.  I agree that we should leave judgments of right or wrong to families to instill, but judgment isn't the purpose of these programs.



The state has a concern.  It does not have a right.  There's a difference.

The state pays a lot *more* money for the health effects of obesity.

Tell me what right the state has to tell me how to live.  Can they order me to lose weight?  To take exercise?  To turn over my family history or my genetic code to evaluated for predisposition to certain diseases?

Arguing that it costs money does not make it the domain of the government.  Lots of things cost money.  Freedom is not for sale.


----------



## MJS (Aug 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> See, that's the problem. If the parents won't, then the state must.
> 
> No. If the parents won't, then it doesn't get done. Period.
> 
> That sucks when you want a well-ordered society that doesn't have rampant teen pregnancy and STD's running wild. But do we have a free society or don't we?


 
So, going by this, you're ok with a bunch of kids having kids? Good God Bill, you're making it sound like I'm encouraging some sort of dictatorship or something. LMFAO...that is so far off base its not funny. No, I'm simply saying that, like it or not, the state dictates, how fast you drive. If you drive over the posted limit, you risk getting a ticket. The state dictates when you can buy alcohol. The state dictates taxes. The state dictates how many days out of the year kids must go to school. 

Let me ask you this...lets say you have kids. Maybe you do, I really dont know. Anyways, lets say your 14 yo daughter comes up to you and your wife and says, "Mom, dad, I have something to tell you. I'm pregnant." Lets say your son comes up to you and says, "Dad, I got a girl pregnant." What would your reaction/response be to those situations? 





> We all give up absolute freedom in order to live voluntarily in a society that has laws that protect us all. But those laws in the USA are built within a frame work of civil liberties upon which the government may not infringe.
> 
> In other words, just because the government has a vested interest in certain behavior, and just because the parents who should do it refuse to do it, that does not pass authority into the hands of the government.
> 
> ...


 
Umm...I dont even know how to respond to this. Where the hell did all this come from?? I wonder how many parents complain because teachers are teaching their kids history that may not jive with what THEY feel is the real history. What about math? I wonder how many ***** because the teachers aren't teaching it like THEY learned it, 30yrs ago. 

IMO, this is really an issue that shouldnt be taken lightly. I dont know about you, but frankly, I dont feel like supporting a bunch of kids born out of wedlock, because the baby-daddy, is 14 and cant work, and the baby-momma is 14 and in the same boat. If you're not going to act responsible, then keep your dick in your pants and your legs closed.  

Its nice to know there're parents out there who dont give a **** what their kids do.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 16, 2010)

Well with all that... this article/study has just opened a pandora's box of permissiveness and (ir)rationality for teens to go ahead and HAVE sex because it's not that bad on their grades.

WTF?? 




> *Teen sex not always bad for school performance*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I was going to start a new topic on it but I think it relates to what is being said here.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 16, 2010)

Oh yeah, high school was pretty wild.  Actually, to be more specific, my last high school was pretty wild.  Judging by it those numbers are far too low.  Our ski trip was the stuff of legends.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 16, 2010)

MJS said:


> So, going by this, you're ok with a bunch of kids having kids?



No, I'm not OK with it.  I'm very much against it.  I'm also against defaulting authority to the government when parents abdicate.



> Good God Bill, you're making it sound like I'm encouraging some sort of dictatorship or something. LMFAO...that is so far off base its not funny. No, I'm simply saying that, like it or not, the state dictates, how fast you drive. If you drive over the posted limit, you risk getting a ticket. The state dictates when you can buy alcohol. The state dictates taxes. The state dictates how many days out of the year kids must go to school.



The state dictates many things.  That does not mean it has authority to dictate everything.



> Let me ask you this...lets say you have kids. Maybe you do, I really dont know. Anyways, lets say your 14 yo daughter comes up to you and your wife and says, "Mom, dad, I have something to tell you. I'm pregnant." Lets say your son comes up to you and says, "Dad, I got a girl pregnant." What would your reaction/response be to those situations?



I'd be very upset.  Full disclosure, I have no kids, and at my age, I'm not likely to have any.  Just FYI, that was a conscious decision.

However, I have three younger sisters, two of whom got pregnant at an early age.  I now have nieces and grand-nieces, and I'm 49.  That's crazy.  I think kids are having sex way too early, I think parents abdicate their jobs as parents, and I think the results cost society dearly, in both financial and cultural ways.



> Umm...I dont even know how to respond to this. Where the hell did all this come from?? I wonder how many parents complain because teachers are teaching their kids history that may not jive with what THEY feel is the real history. What about math? I wonder how many ***** because the teachers aren't teaching it like THEY learned it, 30yrs ago.



Teaching history is not handing out condoms.  You suggested _"a) proper education and b) methods of birthcontrol."_ 



> IMO, this is really an issue that shouldnt be taken lightly. I dont know about you, but frankly, I dont feel like supporting a bunch of kids born out of wedlock, because the baby-daddy, is 14 and cant work, and the baby-momma is 14 and in the same boat. If you're not going to act responsible, then keep your dick in your pants and your legs closed.
> 
> Its nice to know there're parents out there who dont give a **** what their kids do.



I take the issue very seriously.  I'm very concerned about teen pregnancy, single parents, and the costs to society.  I am well aware that most parents refuse to step up to the plate and do their duty as parents.

I am also aware that a large segment of our population expects the government to solve problems for them.  Name a social ill, and then explain how the government is best-suited to fix the problem.  Then demand that the government do so.  This is socialism at best, creeping statism at worst.  It leads directly to authoritarian regimes.  Remember, most authoritarian dictatorships were not imposed from without - they were created from within, usually by popular acclaim.

The left and the right both do the same thing, and then they blame each other for big government run amok.  First describe the problem, then demand that government 'do something' about it.

Well, here's the thing.  The problem affects us all; and it's a serious problem.  But giving the government control over it is not the solution.

First, you have the issue of federalism.  Currently, the states run the schools. 

Second, you have the issue of local standards and local control; in many or even most areas of the USA, the local school board, made up of people who have day jobs, running the schools and setting policy.  Historically, we've demanded that, and historically, the courts have agreed; local communities know best what should be taught in local schools.

Third, you have the issue that not all parents want sex education taught in public schools, nor condoms distributed to children, and NOT because they want kids having sex or they think it's just nifty keen that Junior has a Junior at age 13, but because their own sense of morals or perhaps their religious scruples forbid it.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, we (and I include myself in this) tend to see our own beliefs as the 'reasonable' ones and to not take the beliefs of others into account.  Sex Ed reasonable?  You may think so; I may think so.  But if the entire school board of Lower Pig's Knuckle, Arkansas thinks we're full of it, you're going to impose your will on them because you know best?  By the way, I'm not picking on Lower Pig's Knuckle.  Part of my dad's family was from Mountain Home, Arkansas, and that's what it was called once.

I realize that the temptation, when parents abdicate their jobs, is to turn to the government to fix things.  It's easy to do.  But it is generally a mistake.  Government will be HAPPY to take over whatever little problem we might tell them about, but I don't think we'll be as happy when they do.

Hilary Rodham Clinton once said _"It takes a village to raise a child."_  That's basically what you're advocating here.  Government teaching sex education and handing out condoms because parents won't or choose not to.  The village, for lack of a better term, can go pound sand.  The village has a say in the child learning math, to read and write, but not how to introduce their phallum bway-bway into Susie's hoo-ha.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Aug 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> However, the root issue is morality, which is the domain of the parents.


 
And furthermore the state has no basis for discussing morality. Sometimes I think government itself is immoral by definition. It does not matter if its a democratic style, republic, authoritarian, or totalitarian (and that includes communism.)

And that is why watching politicians make laws, like sausage, is so disgusting.

Deaf


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 16, 2010)

MJS said:


> Thought this was an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why, in past discussion, on similar topics, I've suggested that the best thing for parents and teachers to do, is provide a) proper education and b) methods of birthcontrol.




 Agreed, the problem is I am not certain that parents are qualified to do either and its not exactly an easy topic to bring up with one's own children.

 I was taught how to use condoms and foam by Sue Johansen
 a qualified nurse and sex educator in high school.

  There is no way I think my parents would have been comfortable showing me that, or that a good way for a women to slip a condom on a guy was with a blow job.....old Sue probably saved my bacon from becoming a father at 18.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 16, 2010)

Lets not forget school choice.  Parents can still choose schools that teach their children whatever they wish.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 16, 2010)

LoneRider said:


> Devil's advocate here: but what if the parents are incompetent or of questionable morality?


 
Well, obviously having an incompetent government of questionable morality educate your child is the way to go in this situation.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Parents yes, teachers no.
> 
> The state has a valid interest in some aspects of sexual behavior.  However, the root issue is morality, which is the domain of the parents.



Since I've typed on this topic before and read many of the arguments, I scanned this one and decided to post, once again, my address to the above short-sightedness.

The state and/or feds will be paying for young people and their children who can't make ends meet. This is the way we continue working towards a near-complete welfare (or assistance) generation.

Sex is a health issue first and foremost which happens to carry moral implications.  Can a person have healthy sex in an immoral way? Of course. Can a person have unhealthy sex in a moral way? Of course.  It is a two-pronged issue that must be addressed bilaterally and symbiotically.

The impact on public health is undeniable. That said, competent, correct instruction simply MUST be mandated.  In fact, I see this as at least as big an issue as the vaccine controversy and herd immunity.

Health instruction should be given by competent and licensed health professionals.

Moral instruction should be given by parents and any other virtue-based groups they choose (church, etc).

I just won't back down from this. There are FAR too many kids out there getting incorrect information from schools and many who stay home and get NOTHING or bad information from parents.

It should be a bigger campaign than the AIDS campaign - we have an entire world-level class of young people having children and unable to earn a decent wage for a progressive lifestyle let alone PAY for THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.


----------



## MJS (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, I'm not OK with it. I'm very much against it. I'm also against defaulting authority to the government when parents abdicate.


 
Suggestions then?  Yes, I'm looking for something other than "The state has no right...blah blah"  If you're going to say the schools have no right to teach sex ed, then please provide me with something.  

Furthermore, I really dont see anything wrong with some basic common sense things being taught.  I say common sense, because many kids and parents alike, seriously lack in that dept.  These classes are usually part of Health class...sex ed is a simple part of that.  At least the kids would know something.   




> The state dictates many things. That does not mean it has authority to dictate everything.


 
See above.  Again, at least the kids would know something.  





> I'd be very upset. Full disclosure, I have no kids, and at my age, I'm not likely to have any. Just FYI, that was a conscious decision.
> 
> However, I have three younger sisters, two of whom got pregnant at an early age. I now have nieces and grand-nieces, and I'm 49. That's crazy. I think kids are having sex way too early, I think parents abdicate their jobs as parents, and I think the results cost society dearly, in both financial and cultural ways.


 
Likewise my wife and I, as well as my sister and her husband, do not have kids.  However if I did, I wouldnt hide the reality that kids will have sex, drink, drive like *******s, and so on.  My mother raised me to have good common sense and it didn't fail me, when I was at a party, didn't have a way home, etc.  They'd rather have me call them at 1am to get a ride, rather than a call from the cops telling them I was dead.  Did I get punished for being around underage drinkers?  Not at all.  





> Teaching history is not handing out condoms. You suggested _"a) proper education and b) methods of birthcontrol."_


 
Simply an example Bill.  If you said that the state has no right to dictate whats taught, then what if they dont like how (insert anything) is taught?  Pull the kid out of school and home school them?  Then again, maybe thats a better option, given the state of the schools today.  And I'm talking about the gangs, drugs, violence, etc.  





> I take the issue very seriously. I'm very concerned about teen pregnancy, single parents, and the costs to society. I am well aware that most parents refuse to step up to the plate and do their duty as parents.
> 
> I am also aware that a large segment of our population expects the government to solve problems for them. Name a social ill, and then explain how the government is best-suited to fix the problem. Then demand that the government do so. This is socialism at best, creeping statism at worst. It leads directly to authoritarian regimes. Remember, most authoritarian dictatorships were not imposed from without - they were created from within, usually by popular acclaim.
> 
> ...


 
Its a shame that some parents are still living in the dark ages, in denial that things change.  Funny because there are some martial artists that dont agree with change either.  There must be something in the air. LOL.  Anyways Bill....this may be one of those many threads that you and I will agree to disagree, as you seem not willing to budge, nor do I.   I feel that if a parent isnt happy with sex ed in school, fine, they dont have to be...but they should do it then!  They should teach their kids something, anything, because their kids, despite being brought up, raised however the family sees fit, should understand that peer pressure, and of course natural temptation, will always be there.  If you raise your kid to not have sex until marriage, great!!!  But, dont wait until the girl is 30, 2 days before the wedding and you pick then to talk about sex. LOL.  During the dont have sex until marriage, do this and do that chats, explain about birthcontrol, the various forms, and so on.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 17, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Lets not forget school choice.  Parents can still choose schools that teach their children whatever they wish.



Parents (and non-parents like me) still pay taxes for public schools even if they school their children elsewhere.  I have no kids, but I still have a dog in this fight; I pay the same taxes everyone else does for public schools, even though I have no children.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 17, 2010)

MJS said:


> Suggestions then?  Yes, I'm looking for something other than "The state has no right...blah blah"  If you're going to say the schools have no right to teach sex ed, then please provide me with something.



Yes, my suggestion is that parents step up, or we suffer the consequences.  This is basic to freedom.  It is not acceptable (to me) to argue that because parents won't, the government must.  There is a third option; it's called failing.  Freedom means freedom to suck too.



> Furthermore, I really dont see anything wrong with some basic common sense things being taught.  I say common sense, because many kids and parents alike, seriously lack in that dept.  These classes are usually part of Health class...sex ed is a simple part of that.  At least the kids would know something.



See my note about 'reasonable'. You don't see anything wrong with it.  Many parents do.  Their opinions don't matter?



> See above.  Again, at least the kids would know something.



Yes, they would.  And many parents think that teaching them about it is the same as encouraging them to do it, especially when accompanied by making free birth control and STD prevention available.

 And some argue that it is far worse than teaching abstinence.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/abstinence.study/index.html



> *Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths*
> 
> By *Ashley Hayes*, CNN
> February 2, 2010 6:28 p.m. EST
> ...





> Likewise my wife and I, as well as my sister and her husband, do not have kids.  However if I did, I wouldnt hide the reality that kids will have sex, drink, drive like *******s, and so on.  My mother raised me to have good common sense and it didn't fail me, when I was at a party, didn't have a way home, etc.  They'd rather have me call them at 1am to get a ride, rather than a call from the cops telling them I was dead.  Did I get punished for being around underage drinkers?  Not at all.



Again, that's what you see as reasonable.  If we were sitting around having a beer, I might well agree with you, that sounds pretty reasonable.  But other parents disagree and they have the right to disagree.  They also have the right, via the local school boards, to set standards based on local values.  You are sidestepping my comments with regard to that. Do they have the right to set those local standards based on local values or not?



> Simply an example Bill.  If you said that the state has no right to dictate whats taught, then what if they dont like how (insert anything) is taught?  Pull the kid out of school and home school them?  Then again, maybe thats a better option, given the state of the schools today.  And I'm talking about the gangs, drugs, violence, etc.



I didn't say the state has no right to dictate anything that is taught.  The basics are well-recognized and required.  This is our nod to a common public school education, and it establishes basic learning standards.  These are testable and include things like reading, writing, civics, history, and so on.  These basics are also the purview of the individual states, and local school boards set curricula.  Many do not teach sex education because they do not want to. 



> Its a shame that some parents are still living in the dark ages, in denial that things change.  Funny because there are some martial artists that dont agree with change either.  There must be something in the air. LOL.  Anyways Bill....this may be one of those many threads that you and I will agree to disagree, as you seem not willing to budge, nor do I.   I feel that if a parent isnt happy with sex ed in school, fine, they dont have to be...but they should do it then!  They should teach their kids something, anything, because their kids, despite being brought up, raised however the family sees fit, should understand that peer pressure, and of course natural temptation, will always be there.  If you raise your kid to not have sex until marriage, great!!!  But, dont wait until the girl is 30, 2 days before the wedding and you pick then to talk about sex. LOL.  During the dont have sex until marriage, do this and do that chats, explain about birthcontrol, the various forms, and so on.



I could not agree more with the above statements.  We're in perfect agreement that if the school does not provide Sex Ed training, the parents should.  Absolutely.  When the parents fail in this basic duty, they really do harm to their children and to society through the costs that we will all have to absorb.

I just happen to be resistant to calls for government to intervene whenever _'something must be done'_ and no one is doing it.  The government's duties do not include providing moral guidance to children regarding sex (and I do not believe that the moral aspect can be separated from the biological aspect).  I agree that something must be done.  I do not agree that the government must do it.  Failing is an option in a free society.


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree with you that most parents abdicate.  That doesn't make it the job of the state to do.
> 
> I understand that it's a gray area.  The state definitely has a vested interest in public health issues, and it will have more of an interest in times to come, what with socialized medicine taking hold.  However, in issues of parent's rights versus the rights of the state, I tend to sway towards parents.  It bothers me that so many parents are booger-eatin' morons, but that is the danger of a free society.



Hehehe. yeah, right. Its because of things like that that my younger cousins were 12 and 11 years old and their mother got mad at me because I used the word 'penis' around them. They were 12 and werent supposed to know the proper words nor was they supposed to know about sex or anything! (that mother btw got pregnant at age 16.)

a few weeks ago i was using the restroom and my nine year old cousin walked in on me. she said why are you BLEEDING!? (Obviously it was that time of the month.)  I knew her mother (my first cousin) hadnt told her the facts of life even though people can get PREGNANT at that age! So i told her what was that and why it happens every month. I told her not to tell, because her mother would KILL me. But the girl needed to know for god's sake!

My bro and i were told all about sex and the birds and bees. Its the reason I never lost V early and neither did my bro. 

But my mom's family has a history of having babies early and not being terribly educated. and not telling the kids anything.

and thats more draining and more dangerous to a society than having the state having it in school curriculums.

letting 100% parents go be stupid and not having the state provide some education like that? I'd say Oh no no, a mother****ing no....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 17, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> letting 100% parents go be stupid and not having the state provide some education like that? I'd say Oh no no, a mother****ing no....



This is the argument, boiled down to the essence:

*The state has the right to take action to protect itself from economic costs incurred by the poor choices made by citizens.*

In other words, if parents won't teach their children about sex, the the state suffers economically and therefore must protect itself by doing the teaching instead of the parents.

However, this means that the state has the right to make you exercise, lose weight, eat a healthy diet.  Our poor nutrition and lack of exercise and obesity cost the state FAR MORE than teens having babies.  Do you agree?  If you agree that the state has the right to protect itself from the poor choices its citizens make, then you must agree.

In reality, our system of laws give the government very little power over the upbringing of children, and that's intentional.  We'd rather live in a nation of children raised according to their parent's wishes than live in a society of state-run, state-approved set of beliefs and morals.

The upside of freedom is that we have the right to raise our children as we wish.  The downside of freedom is that if we do a sucky job of it, we all suffer as a result.  Your argument is that society has more of a right to intervene than parents have to raise their own children.  Your argument about the costs of non-interference has merit.  However, it also implies costs in terms of interference in all other aspects of our freedom.  I don't approve of giving away of freedom to save money.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The upside of freedom is that we have the right to raise our children as we wish. .



  Not quite,  the state intervenes in the raising of children all the time,  it mandates a minimum level of care and education. Children are not possessions but citizens.

   There are strict laws on what can and can't be done ,  you can't be beating the hell out of your children because that is what you wish, the state will quickly come in and do something about that.

  The question is where to draw the line on state intervention.  There was a good post earlier that parents can deal with the morality of sex and the government deal with the mechanics of birth control.

  That makes sense, somehow I think most parents will avoid going through the standard instruction of using a banana to show how to slip on a condom.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 17, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Not quite,  the state intervenes in the raising of children all the time,  it mandates a minimum level of care and education. Children are not possessions but citizens.
> 
> There are strict laws on what can and can't be done ,  you can't be beating the hell out of your children because that is what you wish, the state will quickly come in and do something about that.
> 
> ...



The state says how fast I can drive my car, but they can't tell me what color to paint it.  Just because the state has some controls doesn't mean it has all controls.

Control over curriculum currently belongs to local school boards.  The courts have traditionally upheld the right of local communities to set standards according to local values.  If they don't want to teach Sex Ed, do they have that right or not?


----------



## Stac3y (Aug 17, 2010)

IMO, provision of factual information is NEVER an infringement of rights. Then again, I'm a librarian. Provision of information is my job, and one of my passions.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The state says how fast I can drive my car, but they can't tell me what color to paint it.  Just because the state has some controls doesn't mean it has all controls.
> 
> Control over curriculum currently belongs to local school boards.  The courts have traditionally upheld the right of local communities to set standards according to local values.  If they don't want to teach Sex Ed, do they have that right or not?



  That is my point, its all a question of where the state's level of control should be set . Like I said before children are citizens, not possessions so your car analogy doesn't hold up.

    Most advanced states will also intervene on an individual basis if they see a parent is not providing a child with a minimum level of care for eg. vaccinations.

  Should sex education be taught by the state?  This all comes down to opinion really. 

Let's face it not all parents are of the same ability or talent.  My opinion is that a standard set on sex education is probably on whole a good thing, the same way a standard is set on a minimum level of reading and arithmetic.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 17, 2010)

Stac3y said:


> IMO, provision of factual information is NEVER an infringement of rights. Then again, I'm a librarian. Provision of information is my job, and one of my passions.



I can't disagree with you.  Parents often object to the teaching of evolution, but evolution is a fact, and it's taught regardless in public schools.  I have no objection to this.

I also have no objection to the teaching of human biology.  That's science, that's fact, and that's commonly taught in public schools whether parents like it or not.

However, "Sex Ed" falls under a different umbrella.  It teaches a variety of things about which there is a great deal of contention among citizens.  Examples include sexual orientation, experimentation, how to avoid unwanted pregnancy, enjoyment, and so on.  These are not just facts about how a sperm meets and egg through sexual intercourse; these are a set of beliefs that some parents, some school districts, don't want to be taught, or they disagree strongly about how they should be taught, or they believe strongly that only parents should be teaching these things.

Not only is Sex Ed different that Biology in terms of what is taught, but it is also different in terms of desired outcome.  Biology teaches children how humans reproduce; it's mechanical.  Sex Ed teaches them about behavior.

Many parents do not want public schools teaching behavior.  Do they have that right or not?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 17, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Let's face it not all parents are of the same ability or talent.  My opinion is that a standard set on sex education is probably on whole a good thing, the same way a standard is set on a minimum level of reading and arithmetic.



I accept that's your opinion.  However, I want to make it clear what you're saying.  The basis of your opinion is _"if the parents can't or won't do it, the state must."_  My own opinion is that the former does not predicate the latter.  In my opinion, this gives rise to a nanny state at best, and a dictatorship at worst.

Historically, free societies do not lose their rights all at once, and dictators don't appear from outside of the society.  Free societies destroy themselves from within, and they do so by dismantling their own freedoms by popular acclaim, one by one, year by year, until they wake up one day and realize they are no longer free.

One can ridicule small things like this as leading to dictatorship.  But some houses are built of bricks.  Each individual brick is very small and unlikely to lead to a house on its own.  Stack them up and you get an edifice.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I accept that's your opinion.  However, I want to make it clear what you're saying.  The basis of your opinion is _"if the parents can't or won't do it, the state must."_  My own opinion is that the former does not predicate the latter.  In my opinion, this gives rise to a nanny state at best, and a dictatorship at worst.
> 
> Historically, free societies do not lose their rights all at once, and dictators don't appear from outside of the society.  Free societies destroy themselves from within, and they do so by dismantling their own freedoms by popular acclaim, one by one, year by year, until they wake up one day and realize they are no longer free.
> 
> One can ridicule small things like this as leading to dictatorship.  But some houses are built of bricks.  Each individual brick is very small and unlikely to lead to a house on its own.  Stack them up and you get an edifice.



  Bill, this is just information, the same way that many other skills are taught.  I am talking just about teaching the mechanics of birth control,  not about the morality of having sex.

  I don't see how this is much different than teaching algebra ,  so how does teaching algebra lead to a nanny state? 

 In fact education is the best defence against a nanny state, why else did totalitarian states first censure the educated classes?  Why did the USSR try to silence the various intellectuals that criticized it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 17, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Bill, this is just information, the same way that many other skills are taught.  I am talking just about teaching the mechanics of birth control,  not about the morality of having sex.



That's not what Sex Ed courses teach.



> I don't see how this is much different than teaching algebra ,  so how does teaching algebra lead to a nanny state?



It wouldn't be, if all it taught was biology.



> In fact education is the best defence against a nanny state, why else did totalitarian states first censure the educated classes?  Why did the USSR try to silence the various intellectuals that criticized it?



Education is an excellent preventative.  Indoctrination is not.  The USSR indoctrinated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701123.html



> In Seattle public schools, sexual orientation is taught in ninth-grade health class, a one-day session that uses vignettes about fictitious teens to illustrate same-sex and opposite-sex attraction. But the topic can arise as early as grade 5, in discussions on the many changes that accompany puberty.
> ...
> At the same time, school systems in politically liberal communities are expanding the lexicon of sex and gender identity in health classes. Homosexuality is one of many topics covered under the umbrella of "comprehensive" sex education, which teaches students how to be comfortable with their sexuality and safe in sexual practice.



Is that about how to avoid becoming pregnant?

All of these issues fall under the purview of 'Sex Ed'.  Only a very few of them are pure science and devoid of personal morals and belief systems.  Biology classes easily cover the former.

Education is great.  Mandated education about preferred behavior is not education as such, it is behavior-modification in order to obtain a desired social outcome.  That's called indoctrination.

Freedom is not something the government teaches to children over the objection of their parents.  You talk about the USSR and repressive regimes, that's it right there.


----------



## MJS (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, my suggestion is that parents step up, or we suffer the consequences. This is basic to freedom. It is not acceptable (to me) to argue that because parents won't, the government must. There is a third option; it's called failing. Freedom means freedom to suck too.


 
Bill, you keep going back to freedom.  I think its safe to say I've said parents are free to do as they wish.  As long as they're willing to accept the fact that their child may be a mom or dad alot sooner than they planned, and the parents will become grandparents sooner than they planned.  

I'll go back to other things that're taught, such as history, math, science, etc.  What if the parents didn't like the way history was taught in school?  Fact is, there is little they can do to control whats taught, with the exception of home schooling.  Even in a private school, its possible there may be things the parents dont like.  

I dont believe I've ever said the school should be the sole source.  I simply said that no matter who teaches it to the kids, someone should, as its something that could have a devastating effect on the kids life.  





> See my note about 'reasonable'. You don't see anything wrong with it. Many parents do. Their opinions don't matter?


 
See above. I think this is the way you are reading into it.  





> Yes, they would. And many parents think that teaching them about it is the same as encouraging them to do it, especially when accompanied by making free birth control and STD prevention available.
> 
> And some argue that it is far worse than teaching abstinence.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/abstinence.study/index.html


 
And what the closet dwellers fail to see, is that at some point in the kids life, they will do it.  As I said, imagine this....parents raise their little princess to remain a virgin until she gets married.  Fine, I have no issue with that.   The Princess is marrying a wonderful Prince, who is also a virgin.  Again, I am perfectly ok with this.   Wedding night comes, and they decide to celebrate and have sex for the very first time.  But, due to their lifestyle, ie: jobs, they like to go out and party 4 nights a week, etc., they dont want kids right now.  Neither the princess or prince, know anything about bc because mom and dad were too proud to teach them.  Now what?  

And for what its worth, I had the birds and the bees chat with my mom.  I had the chat about drinking and driving, drugs, the effects this stuff can have on not only the person ingesting it, but on the family, God forbid I drink/drive and get killed.  I thank God every day for the way my mother raised me.  She wasn't so closed minded to think that her son would never have sex before marriage or heaven forbid drink at a party.  I'm still alive today Bill.  No STDs, no little babies, no DUIs, yet I still went to a party, still hung with my friends, still had sex.  Its a shame more people dont see the value in educating their kids.







> Again, that's what you see as reasonable. If we were sitting around having a beer, I might well agree with you, that sounds pretty reasonable. But other parents disagree and they have the right to disagree. They also have the right, via the local school boards, to set standards based on local values. You are sidestepping my comments with regard to that. Do they have the right to set those local standards based on local values or not?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
And again Bill, you harp and misread what I say.  Again...never said parents dont or shouldnt have rights.  I think I've made my views clear, so I'm not rehashing again.  If you can't or refuse to follow what I'm saying, I dont know what to tell ya.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's not what Sex Ed courses teach.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Well I can only tell you about my education in Canada, it was all about birth control,  how to use a condom is not indoctrination, it is information.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 17, 2010)

MJS said:


> I dont believe I've ever said the school should be the sole source.  I simply said that no matter who teaches it to the kids, someone should, as its something that could have a devastating effect on the kids life.



Should or must?  That's the point of contention. I absolutely agree that it should be taught to children. I only stop at the point of saying that if the parents won't, the state must.



> And what the closet dwellers fail to see, is that at some point in the kids life, they will do it.  As I said, imagine this....parents raise their little princess to remain a virgin until she gets married.  Fine, I have no issue with that.   The Princess is marrying a wonderful Prince, who is also a virgin.  Again, I am perfectly ok with this.   Wedding night comes, and they decide to celebrate and have sex for the very first time.  But, due to their lifestyle, ie: jobs, they like to go out and party 4 nights a week, etc., they dont want kids right now.  Neither the princess or prince, know anything about bc because mom and dad were too proud to teach them.  Now what?



Now they suffer for their lack of knowledge.  At what point is this the responsibility of the state to provide for their lack of knowledge?  I say never.

What you are repeating is that there are negative consequences for children not knowing about sex, birth control, and disease prevention.  I absolutely agree.  But you go further; you use that as a reason that the state should intervene.  I disagree.



> And for what its worth, I had the birds and the bees chat with my mom.  I had the chat about drinking and driving, drugs, the effects this stuff can have on not only the person ingesting it, but on the family, God forbid I drink/drive and get killed.  I thank God every day for the way my mother raised me.  She wasn't so closed minded to think that her son would never have sex before marriage or heaven forbid drink at a party.  I'm still alive today Bill.  No STDs, no little babies, no DUIs, yet I still went to a party, still hung with my friends, still had sex.  Its a shame more people dont see the value in educating their kids.



It is a shame.  It's not the job of the state to do what parents don't.



> And again Bill, you harp and misread what I say.  Again...never said parents dont or shouldnt have rights.  I think I've made my views clear, so I'm not rehashing again.  If you can't or refuse to follow what I'm saying, I dont know what to tell ya.



I understand what you're saying perfectly.  If parents don't teach their children, the children suffer, as does society.  I get it.  I agree.

I only disagree on what comes next.  I do not agree that the state therefore has the right to intercede.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 17, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Well I can only tell you about my education in Canada, it was all about birth control,  how to use a condom is not indoctrination, it is information.



I'm glad things were different in Canada when you went to school.  Apparently, things are changing:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...icit-sex-education-in-schools/article1540642/



> *Ontario to introduce more explicit sex education in schools *
> 
> 
> Kate Hammer and Karen Howlett
> ...



Indoctrination or education?  I'm going to go with indoctrination here.


----------



## MJS (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Should or must? That's the point of contention. I absolutely agree that it should be taught to children. I only stop at the point of saying that if the parents won't, the state must.


 
Should.  Someone should teach it.  Parents, the school system, a doctor, someone from a church, a planned parent-hood worker.  I dont give a **** who does it, but yes, someone should teach it.  I stand by that, and if you disagree, thats fine.  





> Now they suffer for their lack of knowledge. At what point is this the responsibility of the state to provide for their lack of knowledge? I say never.
> 
> What you are repeating is that there are negative consequences for children not knowing about sex, birth control, and disease prevention. I absolutely agree. But you go further; you use that as a reason that the state should intervene. I disagree.


 
see above.





> It is a shame. It's not the job of the state to do what parents don't.


 
See above.  





> I understand what you're saying perfectly. If parents don't teach their children, the children suffer, as does society. I get it. I agree.


 
*Climbs back into my chair after falling over*  OMG, we're making progress...we agreed on something!!! 



> I only disagree on what comes next. I do not agree that the state therefore has the right to intercede.


 
See my first comment.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm glad things were different in Canada when you went to school.  Apparently, things are changing:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...icit-sex-education-in-schools/article1540642/
> 
> ...



  McGuinty backed down on this a while ago.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 17, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> McGuinty backed down on this a while ago.



My apologies then.  I guess I don't keep up much with what happens in Canada.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 17, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> a few weeks ago i was using the restroom and my nine year old cousin walked in on me. she said why are you BLEEDING!? (Obviously it was that time of the month.)  I knew her mother (my first cousin) hadnt told her the facts of life even though people can get PREGNANT at that age! So i told her what was that and why it happens every month. I told her not to tell, because her mother would KILL me. But the girl needed to know for god's sake!



I'm sorry -- it sounds like you crossed the line quite seriously there.  You did owe the young lady an explanation and reassurance that you were OK.  However, more than a brief & somewhat sketchy explanation tied to the circumstances (I'm OK; it's natural and part of being ready to make babies...) was for the parents to decide, not you.  And you owed your cousin immediate notice about the incident, and what you said.  If you're concerned that perhaps your cousin is uncomfortable or unwilling to give an age & developmentally appropriate explanation -- you could have offered to make it a joint conversation between the three of you.

(Just what was a 9-year old doing barging in on you in the bathroom, though?  Seems like maybe some etiquette lessons are also in order.)

Teens and sex is a complicated issue, traveling as it does across bounds of culture, religion, and society.  Teens are going to have sex; that's a given.  Appropriate education to prevent unwanted pregnancy is a societal need -- but the best and first place it should happen is in the home.  The last, but perhaps worst for many reasons, is the schools.  They already have too much to do beyond actual education...  At the same time, the schools may be the only place to be sure it happens... but what do we teach kids?  Religious doctrine about abstinence?  Strict biological fact?

There's just no easy answer.  Even more frustrating is when someone outside inflicts their view of what's appropriate to be taught -- or omitted -- in your child's education.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Parents (and non-parents like me) still pay taxes for public schools even if they school their children elsewhere.  I have no kids, but I still have a dog in this fight; I pay the same taxes everyone else does for public schools, even though I have no children.



You have a point here.  I wouldn't discount your opinion because you don't have any children.  The point I am making is that no child is forced into a public institution.  Parents can still choose whatever kind of schooling they wish (although, regrettably, that is changing.  Look up the homeschooling debate in California).  If parents want a strict religious education for their child, they can still get it (for the most part).  

Overall, I think a system that distributed education dollars to the schools of the parents choice or to fund homeschooling would be the most free and most fair system we could devise as a society.  It balances liberty and egalitarianism nicely.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 17, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> You have a point here.  I wouldn't discount your opinion because you don't have any children.  The point I am making is that no child is forced into a public institution.  Parents can still choose whatever kind of schooling they wish (although, regrettably, that is changing.  Look up the homeschooling debate in California).  If parents want a strict religious education for their child, they can still get it (for the most part).
> 
> Overall, I think a system that distributed education dollars to the schools of the parents choice or to fund homeschooling would be the most free and most fair system we could devise as a society.  It balances liberty and egalitarianism nicely.



Home-schooling operates with rules and regulations.  Parents must teach what would have been taught in the school system; often with the same text books and curriculum.  Subject to inspection and testing of the students.  So mandatory Sex Ed would not be circumvented by home-schooling, depending on the state.


----------



## MJS (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Home-schooling operates with rules and regulations. Parents must teach what would have been taught in the school system; often with the same text books and curriculum. Subject to inspection and testing of the students. So mandatory Sex Ed would not be circumvented by home-schooling, depending on the state.


 
So, that being said, the sex ed would have to get taught according to how the school teaches it, even if the parents disagree, or could they deviate from the protocol slightly?


----------



## MJS (Aug 17, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> You have a point here. I wouldn't discount your opinion because you don't have any children. The point I am making is that no child is forced into a public institution. Parents can still choose whatever kind of schooling they wish (although, regrettably, that is changing. Look up the homeschooling debate in California). If parents want a strict religious education for their child, they can still get it (for the most part).
> 
> Overall, I think a system that distributed education dollars to the schools of the parents choice or to fund homeschooling would be the most free and most fair system we could devise as a society. It balances liberty and egalitarianism nicely.


 
Out of curiosity, is any form of sex ed taught in a religious school?  Never been in one, so I have no idea.


----------



## LoneRider (Aug 17, 2010)

> Out of curiosity, is any form of sex ed taught in a religious school?  Never been in one, so I have no idea.



To answer your question: Yes. I went to Catholic School for well over half of my primary and secondary educational years (1993 to 2001). It started in the 5th Grade for me and it coincided with some age appropriate talk with my parents regarding sex. They segregated the male and female students and had one teacher teach each group.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Home-schooling operates with rules and regulations.  Parents must teach what would have been taught in the school system; often with the same text books and curriculum.  Subject to inspection and testing of the students.  So mandatory Sex Ed would not be circumvented by home-schooling, depending on the state.



That's the key.  It depends on the state.  Some states allow a lot more liberty when it comes to homeschooling then others.

Even in states that seem strict, a lot of the times the standards are written in a very broad manner, allowing the parents to offer the material up with their own spin.  

I think California has the strictest set up where you actually have school officials who act like inspectors and participate in all kinds of jackbootery, but that is the exception and not the rule.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 17, 2010)

MJS said:


> Out of curiosity, is any form of sex ed taught in a religious school?  Never been in one, so I have no idea.



It depends on the religious school.  The sex education at a Unitarian Universalist school is going to be vastly different then at a Baptist Academy.  Abstinance only programs get a lot of press and are used in religious schools who have a Taboo view of sex.

Generally, though, they do teach students about sex and the moral issues surrounding it.  I'm not advocating anything about their efficacy, I just know that it is taught.


----------



## MJS (Aug 17, 2010)

LoneRider said:


> To answer your question: Yes. I went to Catholic School for well over half of my primary and secondary educational years (1993 to 2001). It started in the 5th Grade for me and it coincided with some age appropriate talk with my parents regarding sex. They segregated the male and female students and had one teacher teach each group.


 


maunakumu said:


> It depends on the religious school. The sex education at a Unitarian Universalist school is going to be vastly different then at a Baptist Academy. Abstinance only programs get a lot of press and are used in religious schools who have a Taboo view of sex.
> 
> Generally, though, they do teach students about sex and the moral issues surrounding it. I'm not advocating anything about their efficacy, I just know that it is taught.


 
Thank you both for your replies.  Its good to see that even in a religious school, depending on the school, that its still taught.  And I'd imagine that even if abstinance is taught, I have a feeling, and I may be wrong, that sex is viewed as a bad or taboo thing, when in reality, its not.  Its one thing to tell people to abstain and give reasons why, but I dont think its right to make it sound like it you 'do it' the floor will open up, and you'll be enroute to hell, without passing go. LOL.


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> This is the argument, boiled down to the essence:
> 
> *The state has the right to take action to protect itself from economic costs incurred by the poor choices made by citizens.*
> 
> ...



yes i do agree that obesity and such also has a bad effect on society.  But the state does regulate foods and such. Its not that they stay out altogether. It is regulated to a degree already. 

why not something else as important as sex ed?



jks9199 said:


> I'm sorry -- it sounds like you crossed the line quite seriously there.  You did owe the young lady an explanation and reassurance that you were OK.  However, more than a brief & somewhat sketchy explanation tied to the circumstances (I'm OK; it's natural and part of being ready to make babies...) was for the parents to decide, not you.  And you owed your cousin immediate notice about the incident, and what you said.  If you're concerned that perhaps your cousin is uncomfortable or unwilling to give an age & developmentally appropriate explanation -- you could have offered to make it a joint conversation between the three of you.
> 
> There's just no easy answer.  Even more frustrating is when someone outside inflicts their view of what's appropriate to be taught -- or omitted -- in your child's education.



Maybe i could have gone to my cousin's mom. But then i would have had to tell her what my 9 year old cousin had told me before - that she had already tried sex before! and that she wants to have a baby!  **** I'm not going to refuse to answer such a question. She asked me what it is. Im not gonna run to her mom and say You tell her what it is cause im not going to. Esepcially when the girl at 9 years of age had already had sex and is saying she wants to have a baby NOW. **** that!

and btw. Teaching BC is part of biology. You teach about how humans reproduce. Then teach ways humans have come up with ways to limit the size of their families, or to have no kids. Teaching that "we believe people should remain abstinent until married" is behavior. and how we should act. 

So, I think BC should be taught. and how to use it and failure rates and success rates when using it and stuff. as well as parts of the body and their correct names. as stacy said, Those are facts. I think the state should intervene in that. But parents can teach their kids about abstinence if they like. I really dont care. It is a behavior and not a fact. But the kids have to know all the facts about sex, BC, how to use it and such. In that, I think the state should have say.

I told my then 12 year old cousin about the word penis and periods and stuff. Her mom got mad at me.

That cousin btw is now a beautiful 21 year old princess, who is dating a man seriously for five years and had nothing wrong. No pregnancy, no stds, in college and getting a good education and doing something with her life. Her bro who will be 19 in october, is the same.

If anything, I helped her, not hurt her. Both of them.

Im very proud of them.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 17, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Maybe i could have gone to my cousin's mom. But then i would have had to tell her what my 9 year old cousin had told me before - that she had already tried sex before! and that she wants to have a baby! **** I'm not going to refuse to answer such a question. She asked me what it is. Im not gonna run to her mom and say You tell her what it is cause im not going to. Esepcially when the girl at 9 years of age had already had sex and is saying she wants to have a baby NOW. **** that!


And you don't think the child's mother deserved and NEEDED to know that her 9 year old was engaging in sexual activity?  How would you feel if the roles were reversed, and your sister/sister-in-law kept a secret like that from you?


> and btw. Teaching BC is part of biology. You teach about how humans reproduce. Then teach ways humans have come up with ways to limit the size of their families, or to have no kids. Teaching that "we believe people should remain abstinent until married" is behavior. and how we should act.
> 
> So, I think BC should be taught. and how to use it and failure rates and success rates when using it and stuff. as well as parts of the body and their correct names. as stacy said, Those are facts. I think the state should intervene in that. But parents can teach their kids about abstinence if they like. I really dont care. It is a behavior and not a fact. But the kids have to know all the facts about sex, BC, how to use it and such. In that, I think the state should have say.
> 
> I told my then 12 year old cousin about the word penis and periods and stuff. Her mom got mad at me.


I never said it shouldn't be taught.  I said that the schools were not the best place, in my opinion.  They are, effectively, the place of last resort.  Nor do I support using cutesie names for body parts, or at least not without also teaching the proper names.  But I will say that someone deciding when to teach another person's children about this is overstepping the parental boundaries.  I rather suspect your opinion on that may change should you become a parent.


----------



## aedrasteia (Aug 17, 2010)

Bill

I respect your serious and sincere arguments but I have a different perspective, born of experience, not of conjecture. Please consider this a difference, not an accusation.

your observation/assertion

"*Yes, my suggestion is that parents step up, or we suffer the  consequences.  This is basic to freedom.  It is not acceptable (to me)  to argue that because parents won't, the government must.  There is a  third option; it's called failing.  Freedom means freedom to suck too."*

Yes. Someone suffers the consequences, more severely than you or me or we. 

the third option... the "failing"...will have a name: Nikki, Robert, LaShawn, Kimberlee, Dennis and more, many more, thousands more. If they (the "failures") are very very lucky - and it is mostly luck - they will go to some other parents. 

But it's far less likely and their horrible bad luck so regularly brings them abuse, neglect, and being mostly ignored, whip-lashed by stumbling attempts at "parenting" from other, older bewildered children who do feel something they call love. The older children are generally ignorant, inept, confused, overwhelmed, well-intentioned and _there is no time for ramp-up_. 90% of the older children are now locked in to a cycle - there is no safety net, for anyone and if there is, the holes are ripped bigger every day. 

The disaster grows and finally, downstream, the ripples reach out and touch other people. Because we (still) won't let the "failures" actually just die without some gesture, somebody (an agency from the awful government)  does something, often too little and too late for the unlucky "failures". But just as often, the 'help' actually helps. I've seen it. Sometimes the "failures" do die, shaken, beaten, starved. They make the news and we all notice, briefly. Unless they actually die, or suffer in some particularly appalling and horrific way, they are simply inconvenient and horribly regretable, yes. But not horrible enough to compel us to effectively stop the cycle.

the babies have no freedom. They will pay and pay and pay. Not abstract. Flesh, blood; a brain and a mind.  In your world most of them, they begin life as somebody's "failing". 

I broke all the rules to keep the 17 and 16 yr olds in my family from having a "failure". Her mother was a sad, neglectful alcoholic and I didn't ask her for permission. Or her father, a gentle, ineffectual alcoholic.  His mother was concerned but was unable to get organized (depression and illness), step-father well-intentioned but unable to make anything change. Once I took irrevocable intervention, his mother joined in. But whatever happened with these barely functional adults, I was not going to allow it for these  young people. They all recieved accurate information, love, tough love and effective, consistent contraception till they were old enough to pay for it themselves. If that means I infringed on freedom, so be it.

The one year old baby they waited to have is loved and well, they are together and they matured over 11 years.  We helped them become responsible adults by intervening, no, interfering.  Her friends had babies (several) at 15, 16, 17 - all but one father is long gone. The mothers are poor, dependent, marginally educated and the children are sweet but barely 'raised'.  In a few years they will be able to make more babies and these mothers are likely to be too disorganized, incompetent to act effectively. And they are fatalistic about the future. Utterly disheartened. They want good for their cheldren but are just too messed up to make it happen. They might get their lives together, but while we wait for that, the babies will have more "failures", and on and on,  unless somebody changes the script.

I have not a single regret.

A


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 17, 2010)

MJS said:


> Good point.  Page 2 of the article has a section titled, "Parents in outer space' which applies to what you just said.



Um, shouldn't that be titled 'Parents *from* outer space?'

cause i've come to the conclusion that some parents are really from some planet that aint even been discovered yet.

Just sayin'....


----------



## MJS (Aug 18, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Um, shouldn't that be titled 'Parents *from* outer space?'
> 
> cause i've come to the conclusion that some parents are really from some planet that aint even been discovered yet.
> 
> Just sayin'....


 
LOL, yes, I agree 100% with that.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 18, 2010)

Bit late in responding here, my apologies if the discussion is expired.  Anyway...



Bill Mattocks said:


> The state has a concern. It does not have a right. There's a difference.
> 
> The state pays a lot *more* money for the health effects of obesity.
> 
> ...


 
No, no, and where the hell did I argue in favor of the state doing any of these things?  My post never mentioned monetary costs once; I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.  

I was basically arguing two things: 1) providing sex ed and/or birth control, in and of itself, is not infringing on parent's rights or roles, and in fact is the least intrusive method of addressing the state's concern, and 2) the interests of preventing STDs and teenage pregnancies are valid interests to pursue irrespective of morality.


----------



## Stac3y (Aug 18, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Maybe i could have gone to my cousin's mom. But then i would have had to tell her what my 9 year old cousin had told me before - that she had already tried sex before! and that she wants to have a baby! **** I'm not going to refuse to answer such a question. She asked me what it is. Im not gonna run to her mom and say You tell her what it is cause im not going to. Esepcially when the girl at 9 years of age had already had sex and is saying she wants to have a baby NOW. **** that!


 
Speaking as a mother, I'm begging you to tell your cousin's parents about this. A 9 year old who has "tried sex" is likely the victim of molestation, or needs more supervision (at the very least!) I don't think you did anything wrong by explaining what was going on, but if you care about her, PLEASE tell her mom about her "trying sex" and wanting to have a baby. This is very dangerous behavior and not something that your influence is sufficient to stop.


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 18, 2010)

Stac3y said:


> Speaking as a mother, I'm begging you to tell your cousin's parents about this. A 9 year old who has "tried sex" is likely the victim of molestation, or needs more supervision (at the very least!) I don't think you did anything wrong by explaining what was going on, but if you care about her, PLEASE tell her mom about her "trying sex" and wanting to have a baby. This is very dangerous behavior and not something that your influence is sufficient to stop.



yeah i know. very dangerous. I'm afraid her mom will get mad at her though and punish her or something. She doesnt need that me thinks. She neecds to be educated. 

I actually have a lot of influence on 9 year old tbh. She calls me her fave cousin and follows me around like that poem 'i have a little shadow that goes in and out with me and what could be the use of him is more than i can see' a few weeks ago i was out to a party at my uncle's house with my bf, Bruce, and she hung around us all night.  It is because of this trust and love for me and im her fave and she feels she can talk to me about stuff that I believe she came to me and told me about trying sex and wanting to have a baby because she loves babies. something she never told anybody else. She didnt go to her mum (i dont blame her really knowing my relatives at times) I guess since I know my own relatives, that I dont completely trust her mum to do the right thing. So where does that leave me? I guess i'm in a dilemma here.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 18, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> yeah i know. very dangerous. I'm afraid her mom will get mad at her though and punish her or something. She doesnt need that me thinks. She neecds to be educated.
> 
> I actually have a lot of influence on 9 year old tbh. She calls me her fave cousin and follows me around like that poem 'i have a little shadow that goes in and out with me and what could be the use of him is more than i can see' a few weeks ago i was out to a party at my uncle's house with my bf, Bruce, and she hung around us all night.  It is because of this trust and love for me and im her fave and she feels she can talk to me about stuff that I believe she came to me and told me about trying sex and wanting to have a baby because she loves babies. something she never told anybody else. She didnt go to her mum (i dont blame her really knowing my relatives at times) I guess since I know my own relatives, that I dont completely trust her mum to do the right thing. So where does that leave me? I guess i'm in a dilemma here.


Blade -- the more I think about this, the more you have a serious problem here.  It is not particularly normal for 9 year olds to "try sex."  They may play doctor; given an opportunity they're likely to explore the differences in their bodies.  At 9, it's more typical for the girls to chase and torture boys with threats of kisses than anything more.  You need to inform the girl's mother -- and if you have such significant concerns about her reaction that you feel you cannot do this -- you need to at least discuss it with someone from Family Services.  There's a possibility of abuse or assault -- or simple neglect -- that needs to be addressed.


----------



## MJS (Aug 18, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> yeah i know. very dangerous. I'm afraid her mom will get mad at her though and punish her or something. She doesnt need that me thinks. She neecds to be educated.
> 
> I actually have a lot of influence on 9 year old tbh. She calls me her fave cousin and follows me around like that poem 'i have a little shadow that goes in and out with me and what could be the use of him is more than i can see' a few weeks ago i was out to a party at my uncle's house with my bf, Bruce, and she hung around us all night. It is because of this that I believe she came to me and told me about trying sex and wanting to have a baby because she loves babies. something she never told anybody else. I guess since I know my own relatives, that I dont completely trust her mum to do the right thing. So where does that leave me? I guess i'm in a dilemma here.


 
Question for you:  If you or the 9yo were to mention any of this to the parents, what do you honestly think the reaction would be?  Does the parents of this 9yo talk to their kid(s) about bc, sex, etc?  If you think that the childs parents would be accepting of this, then it may be a good idea to talk to them, with the child.  If they wouldn't, then IMO, if you have concerns for the child, then, and I'm sure I'll take some flack for saying this, but someone needs to help this child, and if the help comes in the form of sex ed., then so be it.  Seems to me, the child is reaching out for some help, and someone needs to give it to her, be it you, her parents, if they're willing, a doctor, teacher, someone.


----------



## MJS (Aug 18, 2010)

Of course, as others have said, it is possible there is some sort of abuse going on which certainly needs to be looked into.  

Then again, in todays world, I woudln't totally rule out sex.  Nothing says that a 9, 10, 11 or 12yo couldn't have sex.


----------



## Carol (Aug 18, 2010)

MJS said:


> Of course, as others have said, it is possible there is some sort of abuse going on which certainly needs to be looked into.
> 
> Then again, in todays world, I woudln't totally rule out sex.  Nothing says that a 9, 10, 11 or 12yo couldn't have sex.



Sure, they could...potentially...have sex. But certain patterns of behaviour are commonly associated with abuse.  

By the same token, nothing says a child can't hide food in their nightgown or in a closet, or under the bed.  But when they do, it is a common sign of abuse.


----------



## Stac3y (Aug 18, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> yeah i know. very dangerous. I'm afraid her mom will get mad at her though and punish her or something. She doesnt need that me thinks. She neecds to be educated.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> She didnt go to her mum (i dont blame her really knowing my relatives at times) I guess since I know my own relatives, that I dont completely trust her mum to do the right thing. So where does that leave me? I guess i'm in a dilemma here.


 
I don't see the dilemma. This is something a parent should know. If you feel the child would be in danger if you told the parent, then call Child Protective Services. If not, please tell her parents.


----------



## MJS (Aug 18, 2010)

Carol said:


> Sure, they could...potentially...have sex. But certain patterns of behaviour are commonly associated with abuse.
> 
> By the same token, nothing says a child can't hide food in their nightgown or in a closet, or under the bed. But when they do, it is a common sign of abuse.


 
Yup, anythings possible.  

Of course, if there is a case of abuse, IMO, I dont think this is the place to talk about it.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 18, 2010)

Bill,

Do you believe that in order to get welfare or other government assistance with basic living needs that one should be able to prove they are drug free and on birth control?

Your tax dollars are not only paying for a unilaterally free education for all children (which, even if you are not a parent, you DO have a stake in as the youth will be running this country and its companies when you are starting to poop your pants again), but also the offspring from those poorly-educated-in-the-way-of-sex.

Everyone pretty much ignored what I typed upstream ... what about global health? STDs in teens?  Do you not find this a public health concern?  All the babies (even if physically healthy) born to teens are at risk for learning problems, behavior problems which all means ... guess what? More money out of your pocket in taxes to help these kids.

A condom costs around a dollar. A child costs $250,000 in public schools with no secondary education, provided they don't get drastically ill, require special needs like therapy or asthma medications, etc.

When teenage pregnancy is so rampant high schools have daycare for the babies of the students and a portion of the student population signs in their herpes meds to the school nurse once a month ... and this is virtually standard, a large-scale public health risk *is* *happening.*

The law requires immunizations against horrible diseases for a child to even get into a public school (exceptions notwithstanding).  

I see no difference in mandating sexual education from a health standpoint in all schools.  Because someone's dropping the ball here (no pun intended) with the pubescent crowds.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 18, 2010)

shesulsa said:


> Bill,
> 
> Do you believe that in order to get welfare or other government assistance with basic living needs that one should be able to prove they are drug free and on birth control?
> 
> ...



How much do you trust the government?

That's the salient question that comes to my mind when I think about interests the State has in matters concerning my life.  Our government has engaged in outright eugenics, it has tested drugs and poisons on its own citizens, and it has lied and covered up information about food and pharmaceuticals.  This government is engaged in all kinds of shady activity and I can clearly see a dark impulse moving in many areas the State touches.  

Therefore, my default position is to limit the powers of the State where ever I can.  I would rather let people make their own decisions and make mistakes, then give the government the power to make decisions for me.  

I agree in principle that government could have a role in making some of these decisions.  The reality on the ground is that our government is wholly corrupt, bought and paid for by the corporations and elite social engineers.  We need to resist everything they want to do to us.

The State could have a role, but not this State.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 18, 2010)

shesulsa said:


> Do you believe that in order to get welfare or other government assistance with basic living needs that one should be able to prove they are drug free and on birth control?



I've never given it much thought; but now that you ask, I guess no, I don't. On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with 'workfare' as it has been applied to welfare.



> Your tax dollars are not only paying for a unilaterally free education for all children (which, even if you are not a parent, you DO have a stake in as the youth will be running this country and its companies when you are starting to poop your pants again), but also the offspring from those poorly-educated-in-the-way-of-sex.



Yes, I agree.

But does society's claim overwhelm the right of a parent or a local school board to refuse to subject their children to this type of education?  I think it does not.

Yes, this means that when parents abdicate their duty, society pays the price - *I* pay the price.  I totally get that.

But to me, that is not sufficient reason to take away the traditional right of parents to inculcate the sexual mores, values, and education that they wish their children to have.  The mere fact that many parents refuse to teach their children at all does not give society the right to do it for them.

That's what I mean when I say yes, we *should* teach children about sex and birth control and disease prevention, but the fact that parents don't does not mean that society must.

You give a child a dollar and tell him he can do with it as he pleases.  As long as he makes a wise choice, you let him do as he wishes.  If he makes a poor choice, you intervene.  That's not freedom, is it?

As a parent, I don't have a problem with it - go ahead and intervene!  But as a government, oh no, I don't think so.  My dollar, and if I want to spend it badly, too bad.  Same for sex ed.  Parents have the right.  If they blow it, too bad for all of us.

I'd rather see us all go down the tubes than have our rights stripped from us because some parents refuse to do the right thing.  I'm a give me liberty or give me death kind of guy, I guess.  At least about this.



> Everyone pretty much ignored what I typed upstream ... what about global health? STDs in teens?  Do you not find this a public health concern?  All the babies (even if physically healthy) born to teens are at risk for learning problems, behavior problems which all means ... guess what? More money out of your pocket in taxes to help these kids.



As I've said before, I agree about the costs.  No argument there.  I only argue about the right of the government to intervene in order to save that money.

*IF* I agreed that the government should intervene in order to save society, or in order to save us taxpayers a gazillion dollars, then I would *also* have to agree that society has the right to make me eat healthy, exercise, and lose weight.  After all, heart disease costs us billions!!!



> A condom costs around a dollar. A child costs $250,000 in public schools with no secondary education, provided they don't get drastically ill, require special needs like therapy or asthma medications, etc.
> 
> When teenage pregnancy is so rampant high schools have daycare for the babies of the students and a portion of the student population signs in their herpes meds to the school nurse once a month ... and this is virtually standard, a large-scale public health risk *is* *happening.*
> 
> ...



I do see a difference, and the courts have in many cases as well.  Here's the difference.

When infringing on civil liberties (since no right is absolute), we traditionally ask ourselves what is the danger to society if we do not?  And (this is the important bit) we ask ourselves to demonstrate ACTUAL DANGER and not theoretical danger.

When a child is not immunized, society is at risk.  And that risk is quantifiable; we can see the damage very easily when disease spreads among un-immunized populations.  The danger to society is both real and quantifiable.

When a child is not taught about pregnancy and STDs, there is likewise a risk to society (as you described) but that danger is NOT quantifiable.  You can't point to a person or group of people and see THAT person is damaged and it costs us X dollars.  It is easy to see the danger, but not the SPECIFIC danger.  Some kids get no sex ed and do just fine.  Others get loads of sex ed and get in serious trouble over and over again.

I'm not splitting hairs here.  The SCOTUS asks just such questions before they make decisions that limit civil liberties.

What you're saying here is very understandable.  There is a huge cost to society when kids do not get Sex Ed.  I get it.  But parents and school boards have the right to refuse such education, and in many locations in the US, they have.  You would override that in the interest of the public good.   I would not.  We both agree about the risk, we just don't agree about the right of the government to intervene.


----------



## MJS (Aug 21, 2010)

Not sure how long this'll be viewable, but anyways....

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-le-blatteau-teens-0821-20100821,0,1886582.story



> As a teacher and supporter of comprehensive sex education, I appreciate the Aug. 16 article on the results of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey [Page 1, "Teens Frank About Sex Lives"].
> Although the results might surprise some, I believe they should motivate us as adults to empower our teens to make healthy, responsible and educated choices. We can do this with comprehensive sex education in our schools.
> Clearly, our overly sexualized culture affects teens' decision-making. Why shouldn't we address this reality with honest, factual information taught by caring adults?
> The correct use of condoms by sexually active young adults prevents pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. The correct use of birth control pills and/or the morning-after pill also prevents pregnancy.
> ...




Interesting article, written by someone who, IMO, seems to have a good head on their shoulders.  I do find it interesting that people, or some people, are harping repeatedly on the gov. issue.  I'd be interested in hearing a reply to this post.  May've been overlooked accidentally, I dont know.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 21, 2010)

I think we should spay or Neuter our teens.  There are enough unwanted children already.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2010)

MJS said:


> So, that being said, the sex ed would have to get taught according to how the school teaches it, even if the parents disagree, or could they deviate from the protocol slightly?



It depends on the state. Some states have very little supervision and some states are Big Brother. There's no easy answer. I hope parents do the right thing, but I don't know if we want to give this state the ability control so much. They don't deserve that kind of trust.


----------



## MJS (Aug 22, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> I think we should spay or Neuter our teens. There are enough unwanted children already.


 
That and/or possibly the parents as well.  God knows there're some people that shouldn't even have kids.


----------



## MJS (Aug 22, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> It depends on the state. Some states have very little supervision and some states are Big Brother. There's no easy answer. I hope parents do the right thing, but I don't know if we want to give this state the ability control so much. They don't deserve that kind of trust.


 
Again, I was just looking for some clarification on what was said, thats all.   Of course, as I've said in other posts, I really dont care who is teaching it, but IMHO, someone should be teaching it...parents, doctors, someone from a church, anyone, but it needs to be taught.  

This is 2010, not 1910.  Things and times have seriously changed.  What I find very funny, is how some people (not necessarily anyone here) think sex is such a taboo thing.  Turn on the TV, and I would bet anything that some form of sex would be there, be it kissing, 2 people having sex, etc.  What do these people do, not turn on the TV?  IMO, not teaching kids about it is doing them just as much harm as if the kids were actually having it.


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 27, 2010)

well an update.

i went to my mum (the 9 year old's mom's aunt) and i told her everything including the fact that relatives get mad at me if i tell their kids anything despite our family's history (mostly no university degrees, just babies at young ages and not talking about sex ed and hiding things with these results) Mum said i wasnt wrong in answering the girl's questions and if she had a question about period i did the right thing to answer her. I then expressed my wish i didnt want the girl to be punished or hurt by her parents in any way, and my mom said she will talk to her niece and tell her what i said and tell the niece keep a close eye on her daughter maybe sit down for that birds and bees chat.

I couldnt keep quiet, just what you people told me, to tell.


----------

