Sex Education in Public Schools

[MacGuffin]

Alright, so I suppose this could go in a different section, but I thought I would pose the question here first.

One of my classes has recently been discussing the debate over sex education in public schools, namely the merits of abstinence-only education vs. consequentialist education. In other words, whether or not it is better to take an approach teaching kids that abstinence is the best method of protection or to teach them more about the consequences of unprotected sex and how to stop them.

In my state, abstinence-only education is the method that prevails. I learned everything I know about safe sex from my prep parenting class (which I took because I found it interesting, not because I needed to) and a parent who was very open about any sexual questions I had.

So here are my questions: Which method of education do you think is better or more effective and why? What method were you taught in school, and did it help or not? If school was not your primary source of education, where did you get it from?

[Anonymity]

Abstinence is great, and kids should totally be told that it is the only foolproof way to keep from getting pregnant or infected. But if that's all they're told, it's not going to do them any good. Let's face it: Some kids are just going to have sex anyway. It's better to tell them how to do it safely than to just tell them they shouldn't when they already are.

[luvflamingos]

I think the state/schools should teach masturbation along with or in place abstinence. Probably doesn't answer the question, but I don't know what consequentialist is. I hardly know anyone in real life or and just a few on here who have been abstinent. So why not just teach us about our own bodies and how to touch our own buttons instead of telling us not too, but knowing we are probably going to anyway? More importantly, before we share ourselves with someone else.

[Anduriel]

Originally Posted by luvflamingos

I think the state/schools should teach masturbation along with or in place abstinence. Probably doesn't answer the question, but I don't know what consequentialist is. I hardly know anyone in real life or and it seems like on here who has been abstinent. So why not just teach us about our our bodies and how to touch our own buttons instead of telling us not too, but knowing we are going to anyway?

Consequentialist basically means teaching kids that abstinence is the only way versus teaching that unprotected sex has consequences, and if you're going to do it, how to do it safely (condoms, birth control etc.).

I think abstinence only has become a little outdated in today's society. While it should be presented as an option, it shouldn't be the only one taught.

[Tara.]

Abstinence is ideal. But consequential is more realistic.

[Jaguar]

[quote=Superstar;483315]
In my state, abstinence-only education is the method that prevails.

And Texas has one of the highest, if not the highest, rates of unwanted teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. People who promote this are much more interested in seeing that people don't have sex than they are in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

[Ellie]

Consequentialist, definitely.

I was first taught about sex by my mum then later through school. When I was first taught I don't think it would fit into either category but I may be wrong. In school we were taught about the consequences which I think was effective. Lets be honest; abstinence may be the best method of protection but how realistic are the outcomes going to be? On any subject, sex related or not, you may be told not to do something but that doesn't mean that every single person is going to follow and if they don't they need to know about the consequences.

[The Morrigan]

Well, some people are going to have sex anyway so they should at least be taught how to do it safely and given access to contraceptives once they reach the legal age. I know my school has Sexions come in every week and people with C Cards can go and get free condoms.

However, I also think it should be emphasisied that the only sure way to not get pregnant or catch STDs is from not having sex.

[Rainbow Dash]

Abstinence-only education is ridiculous imo. Sure, it is the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs but realistically teenagers ARE going to have sex if people decide to bury their heads in the sand or not.

Sex isn't an evil thing like what a lot of Abstinence sex education classes make it out to be.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

I support comprehensive courses, meaning that it does cover the fact that abstinence is the ONLY way to make sure that you can't get pregnant, but also covers how to safely have sex, STDs, etc. That's pretty much what I had. It wasn't just "Don't have sex, it's too dangerous". It was more like "It's not recommended that you have sex, but if you decide to, here's what you should do to be safe".

[bitesize]

Uh, consequentialist, definitely. To be honest, I know for a fact that sex education which simply tells us not to have sex would be met with ridicule among my peers. (Even Mean Girls has copped onto this.) I agree with some above posters that young people should be reminded that abstinence is the only 100% safe method of contraception (although that isn't even fully true, I know of two people who got pregnant without having had penetrative sex) but I think teaching teenagers the consequences of their actions will be highly more effective. Teenagers are going to have sex, whether or not we're told not to. If we're just taught that we shouldn't have sex, and not how to be safe or what precautions to take if (and often when) we do decide to have it, it's really not gonig to get us anywhere.
When we were in fourth year (fifteen/sixteen) we had a sex ed class consisting of ten weekly two-hour sessions which taught us a lot ~ all different methods of contraception, how to put on a condom correctly, options available for unwanted pregnancies..etc. I think it was brilliant.

[taylalatbh.]

Teaching teens about not having sex doesn't really seem like a good idea. Because the ones who don't listen and do it anyway, don't have the correct education to prevent STIs and pregnancy.

Simple as, really.

[Anduriel]

Don't have sex. You could get pregnant and DIE.

[Kyeto-X]

I actually did a full 15 minute speech on this in my comm 101 class

Consequentialist is more effecctive because it gives teenagers the opition that IF they want sex, they can know how to do so safely (i.e. how to use condoms, contraceptives, ect.) In my reserch, Only half of the Abstainces only programs showed a decrease of sexual behavior, and in some cases, it actually INCREASED sexual behavior. It's much the same effect that prohibition had on alcohol consumption. If you ban something, people will try it out to see we it is so bad

However, for a Comprehensive Sex Ed program, There was actually 40% delay in the onset of sex, with increase condom and contraceptive use, 30% reduced frequence of sex, including a return to abstainacne in some teens, and 60% reduction in amount of unprotected sex. Over all, Comprehensive Sex Educated Kids have a remarkable 50% decrease of unwanted pregnancies when compared to Abstainance only Educated populations...

Isn't decreased pregnancies about a thrid of what Abstaince is suppose to accomplish

This is because Abstaince-Only populations are not taught the social tools to deny sexual advances or internal urges. In Abstaince-only courses, you are given a sex drive at 12, a marriage at 23, and you are suppose to sweat out the in the intermediary time. Nor are they taught about how effective or how to use or obtain contraceptives. So when they DO evenutally have sex, they have no idea how to do so safely, or even how to select a proper mate. These are the kids that go to a party, get lust drunk and wake up the next morning to a total stranger because they did not have a battle plan to deal with their sex drives, and it began to drive them.

Comprehensive Sed Educated Teenagers tend to know more about their own sex drives, what effects it, and how to control unwanted urges or advances. They are also more likely to actually save it for someone special, like a signifcate partner, rather then lose it at a random party, because they know they don't have to wait ten years and a wedding day to have sex and if this current boyfriend or girlfriend is right, they can do it.

Phail on Purity rings

[Alrex]

If I was told to not have sex, I would imagine it would make me curious and have sex.

But if someone scared me with pictures of the clap or genital warts, I would probably use protection and maybe even hold off on the sex.

[TheLittleNinja]

We were taught about safe sex, and about unprotective sex. I found this really effective. We had practical lessons - putting condoms on models, mixing fluids in cups to show just how fast STI's can be spread.

We watched video's on teen pregnancy, had different people talk to us about where we can go for advice and support.

Generally really usefull.

[Brandon]

It is in human nature to want sex. Telling us that abstinence is the only safe and effective way to prevent pregnancy and STD's is like saying "you don't need to be driving because walking is safer." Yeah, but it kind of gets you to your destination quicker and kind of worth the risk if you take the proper precautions. So why don't you tell me something useful instead of telling me "DON'T HAVE SEX...it has consequences!" Newsflash, everything we do has potential consequences.

[~CourageousSurvivor~]

Originally Posted by Elfy

Well, some people are going to have sex anyway so they should at least be taught how to do it safely and given access to contraceptives once they reach the legal age. I know my school has Sexions come in every week and people with C Cards can go and get free condoms.

However, I also think it should be emphasisied that the only sure way to not get pregnant or catch STDs is from not having sex.

I agree with this. I think abstinence should be taught but not the only thing that is empahsized. I don't believe in the abstinence ONLY approach but abstinence preferred (to me) means that abstinence is taught and it is explained that it is the only sure fire way to prevent pregnancy and STD's (although I am sure you meant abstinence ONLY?).

Anyway, I learned about everything in school but it was explained that abstinence was the sure fire way to prevent everything where as condoms and birth control helped with prevention.

However, I learned about the consequences from my older brother. He was a father at 17 and got some STD's. So I realized I never wanted to fall into that category, hence the reason I abstained during high school.

So, I guess I believe in a little bit of both? Consequences need to be taught but it needs to be emphasized that abstinence is a sure fire method of prevention where as the others are not.

[Simplyme7]

I think that they should a teach a little of both. Teach them that abstinence is the best answer to stay out of trouble, and teach the consequences of what could happen if they didn't practice abstinence. However I think that they should also teach of the ways to have safe sex... but I really wish that they didn't have to do it so early. I hate the fact that young children are learning this stuff... and i hate the fact that it is necessary since so many of them are sexually active. :/

[Soliloquy]

At my school, we addressed abstinence as well as the consequences of having unprotected sex. So, it was the best of both worlds. I think this is the most ideal method for schools to use. But, if I had to decide, the consequential method is much more realistic. As others have said, there are some teens out there who are simply going to have sex! You can't expect everyone to wait for marriage, so it's best that they be aware of the consequences for when they do decide to engage in sexual behavior.

[Dark_Night]

Personally I think that abstainance should be taught only in the church and within family homes.

I learned about sex through my school as it was too embarrasing for my parents to touch on which is okay since that's normal. If anything I found that way to be most effective because learning about stuff like not being prepared and what could happen if you "misuse" sex, it totally scared the shit out of me to the point where if and when the time comes I want to be as prepared as possible so in that case it's been effective to the point where it's prevented me from not wanting to have sex until I'm 100% ready.

[thebigmole]

Well first of all there are NO benefits to abstinence ONLY education.

In my sex-ed class in high school, called Life Management Skills (also dealt with drugs and abusive relationships and that stuff), we mostly learned about safe sex, and the consequences from sex. I took it over the summer so it was only 2 weeks, thank god I'd never be able to last through a whole semester of it, and we had a lot of guest speakers. We had a Planned Parenthood speaker, who showed us all of the lovely STD pictures, told us all about condoms, including the flavored ones they offered, and all of that good stuff. We had another speaker who said more of the same, but scarred me for life when she showed the tool used for pap smears. Then towards the end of the 2 weeks we had the abstinence only speaker. Now I'm a virgin, and was totally into being a virgin then, but this woman made me want to go out and have sex. She was INSANE. She went on about how condoms "destroyed our innocence". She used candy bar names as puns in support of being abstinent. When we were leaving she wanted us all of get a mint from her and say "Sex is for marriage". It was a complete joke, a bunch of us were trying to avoid taking a mint and the poor girl at the front of the group was caught by her and was so flustered she said the wrong thing. Then later when she couldn't get the mint open we joked about how it was her virginity.

To sum up, teach kids the reality, mention abstinence, but abstinence only=pointless and stupid.

[Alrex]

Originally Posted by Brandon

It is in human nature to want sex.

I agree. It's in life nature to reproduce. Even plants have plant sex

[Gidig]

I was only taught abstinence and the first time I had sex it was unprotected. While I know it was just my own idiotic decision, I feel that if I learned more in school, I would have had protected sex.

I've learned EVERYTHING I know about sex from an LGBT group I go to, and I really wish they gave that knowledge in school. Not only is it not getting pregnant, it's not getting STI's as well.

And in reality, how well is the school's plan on the health curriculum really working with the rates of teen and unwanted pregnancy's we have?

[Guile]

I voted abstinence only (shocked?) Because people shouldn't be having sex untill they are able to take fulll responsability for any mistakes. Anyway, we need stupid people to have children, how else would we keep our McDonalds' up and running? :P

[ShimmeringFaerie]

Originally Posted by Guile

I voted abstinence only (shocked?) Because people shouldn't be having sex untill they are able to take fulll responsability for any mistakes. Anyway, we need stupid people to have children, how else would we keep our McDonalds' up and running? :P

Abstinence-only education doesn't stop people from having sex. Teaching kids how to have safe sex and what to do in case of accidental pregnancy or a condom breaking ensures minimal mistakes happen. Simply saying "don't have sex until you are married" doesn't give kids enough incentive to not have sex. Saying "if you don't use a condom, you'll have this awful disease for life or you'll be paying $10,000 a year for a baby" has a much greater impact.

And as far as I can see, the people who are stupid are the ones who won't tell their kids about sex, but magically expect them to know the consequences anyway. If you're promoting abstinence-only, then you're the one who should take full responsibility for kids who get STIs or get pregnant.

(And I'm moving this to the Debates forum, since I think it'll fit better there).

[Melody Pond]

I think it should be mentioned that abstinence is the only method of birth control that is 100% effective but it shouldn't be taught as the ONLY method of birth control because in my opinion that is just dangerous and stupid.

I also don't think when it is taught it should be over emphasized every birth control meathod should be taugh equally so the children can decide what is right for them, if a teacher waited until marriage and believes that is right then good for them but it doesn't mean it is right for everyone and should be forced down children throats and make them think it is the only option.

[Crazy Filmmaker]

i honestly think they should teach both, thats what my school did, they first said that abstinence is the best method for not getting prego, but they also taught about all the forms of birth control and how effective it is.


and here is a little joke on abstinence that i saw a while back
"Abstinence 99.99% effective" just think about it

[Loki Silvertongue]

People should be given all of the information, taught what it means and be allowed to make their own desicion. Abstinence may be a fool proof method to ensure that teenagers do not get pregnant but people need to learn for themselves.
By teaching them the consequences and allowing them to make their own desicion you are treating them like adults. It also gives them a chance to learn about sex in their own time and at a time where they can still be guided and advised by those that are older more easily.

[Vint Fall]

education on sex? you have education on everything?? and in school?

i can't say the real answer here because no one taught us in public school, or high school, nor parents teach us...we teach ourselves i think... hah sorry, i learnt about it a longer time ago and forgot. but i heard there are sexual education teachers...what's to learn here anyways? you got media and magazines all over which gets to kids and teens before we do.

so i think people should start teaching their teens about everything on sex, safe sex, coincidences of unsafe, how it starts, how it ends, etc. sorry if my answer isn't clear enough though.
is scaring them off just not to do it the need here? if you want to prevent them from having sex so early, use reverse psychology, without any of them suspecting ya.

p.s. i think this should be in the "sex and puberty" section. sounds like for that.

[Kyeto-X]

Originally Posted by Star's Heart*

education on sex? you have education on everything?? and in school?

i can't say the real answer here because no one taught us in public school, or high school, nor parents teach us...we teach ourselves i think... hah sorry, i learnt about it a longer time ago and forgot. but i heard there are sexual education teachers...what's to learn here anyways? you got media and magazines all over which gets to kids and teens before we do.

so i think people should start teaching their teens about everything on sex, safe sex, coincidences of unsafe, how it starts, how it ends, etc. sorry if my answer isn't clear enough though.
is scaring them off just not to do it the need here? if you want to prevent them from having sex so early, use reverse psychology, without any of them suspecting ya.

I agree. Sex education should not be codefied within the schools. It SHOULD be a thing that parents are teaching their kids thoughout their lives. Some parents assume because the school talked about it once, that's good enough for them and they can avoid that embaressing conversation

or worse, they have one time info-dump on their kids twelveth birthday and just assume, again that their bases are covered

It doesn't work like that people...Continuous Parental involvement are CRUCIAL in everything including sex education, drug and alcohol preventition, sexual haressment prevention, Bad grades prevention, obeying the law, gang involvement, etc.

In conclution, Parents, KEEP talking to your kids... Once is not enough

[Melody Pond]

Originally Posted by Star's Heart*

p.s. i think this should be in the "sex and puberty" section. sounds like for that.

I think it fits fine here because we are all debating which type of sex ed we think is best...

EDIT: I have just noticed it was actually moved from Sex and Puberty to here.