Teens And Sex

[MJS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.*

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.

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]

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.

What is most alarming from these statistics is the amount of teens who are not properly protecting themselves. With guidance from adults and a vision for their future, teens will want to make responsible choices. As a result, they will grow up to be healthy adults comfortable with their own sexuality.
Teenagers look to adults for support throughout their adolescence. As adults, we must face this reality, not run away from it.
Leslie Blatteau, president, board of directors, NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut, West Hartford

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]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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.