Teens And Sex

[MJS]

Thought this was an interesting article.

Think your high school senior hasn't had sex?

Think again.

Nearly 70 percent of high school seniors who answered a state survey reported having sexual intercourse in the past 12 months.

"The fact is there are a lot of kids out there having sex," said Diane Aye, epidemiologist with the state Department of Public Health, which conducted the survey with the state Department of Education.

The 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey also found that of the Connecticut teens who are sexually active, 59.4 percent use condoms, which worries some public health officials concerned about the spread of sexually transmitted diseases in the teen population.

The findings don't surprise teens, who say they are pretty open about their sexual activity and say it is frequently discussed at their lockers, although they admitted that their parents might be surprised to hear how prevalent sex is.

"It's talked about a lot. People don't really hide it," said Nina Raffio, 16, of Norwalk. "Teens are more aware of other teens' sexual encounters. They are likely to hide from adults but not from their peers."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?



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.

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]

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

LOS ANGELES — There’s good news for parents who worry that their teenagers’ sex lives are affecting their school performance: A provocative new study has found that teens in committed relationships do no better or worse in school than those who don’t have sex.
More here: http://www.tfponline.com/news/2010/aug/15/teen-sex-not-always-bad-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[chrispillertkd]

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