Sex Ed: Ethics and Effect

[patricius79]

I'm not expecting to win an argument here. I realize I'll be in the minority, and less intelligent and less-informed than most who respond.

Thanks for helping me muddle through my ideas and thinking.

I would ask people to be respectful, civil, and to ask out-of-the-box questions about this complex issue, rather than only repeating what the media reports.

Personally, my current position is that kids should be taught about sexual biology. Kids (in high school, not earlier) should be delicately taught about things like contraceptives and abortion (just so they hear about these things in schools first rather than their peers first, but they should not be taught how to do these things)--as well as why they are wrong--and oral sex (and other popular degradations); along with more time spent on a positive spiritual teaching about the meaning and goodness of sexual feelings, the goodness of sexual integration, purity and freedom (maturity),;and the goodness of sex within marriage, the importance of good character (as to sexuality) for having true friendships; and the moral wrongness of sexual immorality, like fornication, inappropriate contentography, masturbation, anal sex etc. The program should explain the social, emotional, psychological, and economic consequences, of having sex before marriage.

I would like to know more about how sex ed has been taught in schools, and what are the good and bad effects and ethical issue involved.

If anyone has been taught abstinence-only sex ed in schools I would like to know their experience and what it entailed.

Was anyone taught using the Sex Respect or other of the more reputable abstinence programs, like Sex Can Wait, Friends First, Pure Love Club, PEERS, Choosing the Best, Heritage Keepers, Best Friends, Worth the Wait, For Keeps, or other?

Also, what does "comprehensive sex ed" entail exactly in school, in your experience?

Some of the other related issues for me are:

--what was the rate of teen pregnancy and teen STD before comprehensive sex ed?--say, in 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950.

--what is the rate of pre-marital sex and teen pregnancy, and abortion, and STDs today in states where comprehensive sex ed is taught?

--in states where abstinence-only is taught.

--how exactly is the efficacy of comprehensive (or abstinence only) measured? how do we know we are dealing with causation rather than correlations?

(btw, my hypothesis as to why abstinence only is reported not to work is that perhaps it is based on a Puritanical model involving too much fear and a failure to affirm the goodness of sexual feelings, and because--perhaps?...--it is being taught in a culture where even family values people have accepted contraception, and are thus not fully integrated or happy themselves)

--how can we control for all the variables?

--even if comprehensive sex ed is more effective at preventing STDs and teen pregnancies--which it may well be, usually--why would that prove that it is a good thing, or that it has more good effects than bad (which may not be getting measured, for cultural reasons)?

--if you are someone who believes in comprehensive sex ed, how do you know that it correlates (or causes) with more good effects than bad effects?

--how do we know that the those who are doing the studies on abstinence only (or comprehensive sex ed) are unbiased?

 

[patricius79]

I googled "does abstinence work", and I found this article about a Penn Graduate School of Education study discussed on NPR which found that kids in the abstinence-only group did not delay the onset of sex activity,

AND used condoms as much as those in the control group.
https://www.gse.upenn.edu/node/477


This article also came up, from SIECUS, which is very much against abstinence-only programs, yet I found this in the article:

• In 2003, Pennsylvania’s evaluation found that, “taken as a whole, this initiative was largely ineffective in reducing sexual onset and promoting attitudes and skills consistent with sexual abstinence.”[8] The report also states that “overall, the evidence indicates that abstinence-only programs should be focused on early adolescence (grade seven). Programs for urban youth, especially females, should begin in grade six. Beyond the eighth grade, abstinence-only programs can continue to play a valuable role in reinforcing and supporting youth who choose to remain sexually abstinent. For those youth who do not remain abstinent, however, the reduction of teenage pregnancies, STDs, and HIV/AIDS requires an alternative strategy.”[9]http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&PageID=1195

(I changed the bolding to emphasize what I found interesting rather than what they did)



This article at ThinkProgress says that the number of teen births (as of 2010) has dropped to 34 per every 1000 girls aged 15-19, which is the lowest level since this rate has been tracked, beginning in 1940, and that teens are having sex less often and using contracepion more often.. It also make the common claim that teen birth rates are highest where abstinence only is taught, as in Mississippi.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/


At a pro-abstinence-education site, AbstinenceWorks, the claim is made that well-designed abstinence-only programs work to reduce teen sexual activity, and affirms the secular article above which found that abstinence-only kids used condoms as much as the control groups,

but admits that school-based abstinence programs have not demonstrated reductions in pregnancy or STDs:

• Like many evaluations of abstinence education, the 3 peer-reviewed studies above did not measure impact on pregnancy or STDs.14,15,16 While it is evident that abstinent behavior eliminates these consequences, current studies of school-based abstinence programs have not demonstrated reductions in these outcomes.
  http://www.abstinenceworks.org/stats-and-facts-mainmenu-52-sp-447565871

 

[SuperCloud]

My personal view has always been that it is easier to remain celibate as a monk sheltered away from TV and other media images as well as daily sight of young women dressed provocatively on the streets. And far less easy to remain celibate as a priest of a parish in a town/city.

Likewise... I think it is easier to abstain from sex until marriage if you live in a 1950s like USA culture rather a 1890s USA culture and 2010 USA culture.

I have a cousin that went to an all boys school for high school. We're basically the same age. I went to a coed school. We both went to Catholic high schools. He thinks it was good for him to go to an all boys school as it relieved pressure on him to compete for girls and all the other things that come with that. I wish I had gone to an all boys school. And no amount of people pontificating with their holier than thou "cool" views on here are going to convince me otherwise for myself.

I do know I was part of the last graduating class of my predominately black Catholic grade school. My younger brother went there but had to transfer over to a mainly white Catholic school. Now, as he tells it, one of the big culture shocks was that the white kids, yes even the boys, weren't obsessed with sex and having sex with girls, unlike we ethnic Black-Americans were at our mainly black Catholic school. We were also part of the Hip Hop culture. This was in the very early '80s I think. So, rap music and Hip Hop were still confined to blacks and Latinos. The "cool" whites were into Heavy Metal I think. I know they were when I became a teenager.

Point is I'm making. Culture impacts children to. Values and ideals of masculinity etc.

 

[patricius79]

My personal view has always been that it is easier to remain celibate as a monk sheltered away from TV and other media images as well as daily sight of young women dressed provocatively on the streets. And far less easy to remain celibate as a priest of a parish in a town/city.

Likewise... I think it is easier to abstain from sex until marriage if you live in a 1950s like USA culture rather a 1890s USA culture and 2010 USA culture.

I have a cousin that went to an all boys school for high school. We're basically the same age. I went to a coed school. We both went to Catholic high schools. He thinks it was good for him to go to an all boys school as it relieved pressure on him to compete for girls and all the other things that come with that. I wish I had gone to an all boys school. And no amount of people pontificating with their holier than thou "cool" views on here are going to convince me otherwise for myself.

I do know I was part of the last graduating class of my predominately black Catholic grade school. My younger brother went there but had to transfer over to a mainly white Catholic school. Now, as he tells it, one of the big culture shocks was that the white kids, yes even the boys, weren't obsessed with sex and having sex with girls, unlike we ethnic Black-Americans were at our mainly black Catholic school. We were also part of the Hip Hop culture. This was in the very early '80s I think. So, rap music and Hip Hop were still confined to blacks and Latinos. The "cool" whites were into Heavy Metal I think. I know they were when I became a teenager.

Point is I'm making. Culture impacts children to. Values and ideals of masculinity etc.

I think there's something to be said for the all boys, all girls, approach, though probably things to be said for the coed approach too

(I've always liked movies--even Hollywood movies--about boys schools, even like School Ties and Dead Poets Society.)

But generally speaking, what were you taught in sex and, and what do you believe should be taught as far as sex ed?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not expecting to win an argument here. I realize I'll be in the minority, and less intelligent and less-informed than most who respond.

Thanks for helping me muddle through my ideas and thinking.

Human sexuality, especially among youth, has been studied extensively, and to date hasn't produced an effective means of 'dealing' with it. It's the burning desire that defies all logic element that can't be mitigated. Also the stolen apples taste best aspect as well. If anything youth are increasingly driven toward early sexual activity by the same adult society that seeks to reduce it.

A cynical observation might be that the popularity of oral sex is more responsible for a declining pregnancy rate among youth than any other 'incentive'. Also, the growing fields of opportunities for women who can avoid untimely motherhood can be a strong incentive to be very judicious about engaging in vaginal sex.

 

[patricius79]

This article, by a well-known Catholic chastity speaker Jason Evert says that some of the studies used to show that abstinence doesn't work are very flawed.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/zabstined.htm

He also suggests an analogy, built around the premise that the real issue is whether fornication, in itself, is harmful (whether pregnancy or STDs result or not).--and I agree that is the crucial issue, and that it is intrinsically and extremely destructive.

Now suppose the issue is drug use. Lots of kids, lets say are using drugs and are getting HIV doing drugs with dirty needles.

Group A says we need "comprehensive drug education", which includes explaining how to use drugs safely (i.e. without getting HIV), and making clean needles and syringes avaiable.

Group B says we should educate kids about the negative effects of drug use, including HIV, but not explain how to use drugs safely, and not make cleen needles or syringes, etc, available.

Group A says that their approach is more effective at reducing HIV, and they have numerous media reports and studies--whether valid or not-- to support this. They further say that Group B's approach doesn't work.

Group B says that Group A may be reducing HIV, but is encouraging drug use.

Which side which you side with? And how is this different from the issue of sex ed?

 

[patricius79]

Human sexuality, especially among youth, has been studied extensively, and to date hasn't produced an effective means of 'dealing' with it. It's the burning desire that defies all logic element that can't be mitigated. Also the stolen apples taste best aspect as well. If anything youth are increasingly driven toward early sexual activity by the same adult society that seeks to reduce it.

Much truth to that.

A cynical observation might be that the popularity of oral sex is more responsible for a declining pregnancy rate among youth than any other 'incentive'.

I agree, as well as perhaps other degradations, like mutual masturbation or perhaps even anal sex. That's the problem with this issue. It is very complex, as life is, and there are so many variables involved, which I don't trust the scientists and experts to always see.

Also, the growing fields of opportunities for women who can avoid untimely motherhood can be a strong incentive to be very judicious about engaging in vaginal sex.

I suppose, yes.

What were you taught?

Which approach to you prefer to sex ed--abstinence-only or comprehensive sex ed?

 

[patricius79]

Advocatesforyouth.org says:

• The rate of STIs is high among young people in the United States. Young people ages 15-24 contract almost half the nation’s 19 million new STIs every year; and the CDC estimates that one in four young women ages 15-19 has an STI.17
• http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/1487

This article citing the Kohler study says that comprehensive sex ed strongly reduces teen pregnancies, and that abstinence-only doesn't work.

It also says that comprehensive does not reduce STDs.

Neither approach seemed to reduce the likelihood of reported cases of sexually transmitted diseases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/24/AR2008032401515.html

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're asking for a lot of opinions about sex-ed...perhaps it would be easier to focus on a specific issue or two or even three, rather than this shotgun approach of trying to get a little bit of everything.

My high school had a sex ed program that (after learning about sex ed across the U.S.) was probably a little ahead of its time. Abstinence was certainly discussed....though it was not promoted as anything exceptional. My sex ed program was fact-based...which is really the only way sex ed should be taught.

All sorts of facts were presented from what is legally considered rape to how easily different stds spread due to their symptoms (or lack of them). It was an open forum type setting where any questions could be asked either in person or anonymously. This seemed to encourage participation and I believe everyone got something out of it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Human sexuality, especially among youth, has been studied extensively, and to date hasn't produced an effective means of 'dealing' with it.

What exactly do you mean by "dealing with it"?

 

[patricius79]

You're asking for a lot of opinions about sex-ed...perhaps it would be easier to focus on a specific issue or two or even three, rather than this shotgun approach of trying to get a little bit of everything.

My high school had a sex ed program that (after learning about sex ed across the U.S.) was probably a little ahead of its time. Abstinence was certainly discussed....though it was not promoted as anything exceptional. My sex ed program was fact-based...which is really the only way sex ed should be taught.

All sorts of facts were presented from what is legally considered rape to how easily different stds spread due to their symptoms (or lack of them). It was an open forum type setting where any questions could be asked either in person or anonymously. This seemed to encourage participation and I believe everyone got something out of it.

Hi Ana,

Good to see you. I was hoping you would join in.

Yes, I could have tried it that way, but I'm very curious about a number of issues.

What were some of the facts that had an effect on on you? What are some of the most important facts you think kids should know?

When you talk about "fact-based" programs, I assume you mean statistics, biology, how to use contraceptives, and... what else?

how do you know that what was prevented was factual, and that it was covering all the relevant facts, as opposed to selectively covering some "facts" and neglecting others?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hi Ana,

Good to see you. I was hoping you would join in.

Yes, I could have tried it that way, but I'm very curious about a number of issues.

What were some of the facts that had an effect on on you? What are some of the most important facts you think kids should know?

When you talk about "fact-based" programs, I assume you mean statistics, biology, how to use contraceptives, and... what else?

how do you know that what was prevented was factual, and that it was covering all the relevant facts, as opposed to selectively covering some "facts" and neglecting others?

Some of the info that was an eye-opener for me was related to stds. When I was young, I had this preconceived notion that they were obvious, with big disgusting sores that you'd spot immediately as long as you looked lol. I had no idea women can have chlamydia and not even know it. I was even more surprised to find out just how many people have herpes and that in some cases they simply don't show any symptoms. It changed my outlook on safe sex.

I think one of the most important things to educate teens on is the legalities of rape. Not every teen understands what actions are legally considered rape. It's important knowledge for boys to know that regardless of whatever "signals" you think a girl is sending you...if she says "no" then sexual contact is considered rape. It's also incredibly important info for young women to have before they find themselves waking up one morning wondering "what happened".

Fact based programs would also include info on the law...although I suppose a program could also include some "quasi-factual" info related to psychology and sociology.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking in your last question...but I'll take a stab at it and you can clarify if my answer makes no sense....

If I were in control of the program, I'd have a small committee that meets annually or semi-annually for the purpose of reviewing the program materials/lessons and ensuring they are all up to date with regards to the facts.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What exactly do you mean by "dealing with it"?

My semi-colons ('dealing') indicates that you can interpret it any way you like.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What were you taught?

Nothing. We had a brief chapter on the 'plumbing' in our physiology class. This was back in the prehistoric 1950's. Teen pregnancy and std's were virtually unknown, or carefully concealed, back then.

Which approach to you prefer to sex ed--abstinence-only or comprehensive sex ed?

Comprehensive.....I mean really comprehensive. I'll teach the classes. When I get through with them they'll all head for a convent or the priesthood.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Can I ask why this is such a topic of interest for you, and about your own age and whether you have children? Were you born in 1979? If so you'd be a young adult and one not likely to have teenage kids yet unless you began your family at an age that is younger than average.

I engaged with you quite a bit earlier in the summer on previous threads you created or participated in regarding sex education, and don't really want to invest much time doing so again without having a clearer understanding about your own reasonings for the inquiries.

 

[SuperCloud]

I think there's something to be said for the all boys, all girls, approach, though probably things to be said for the coed approach too

(I've always liked movies--even Hollywood movies--about boys schools, even like School Ties and Dead Poets Society.)

But generally speaking, what were you taught in sex and, and what do you believe should be taught as far as sex ed?

In Catholic grade school--still run by nuns at the time--the nuns brought in some dude (or maybe it was a woman, can't remember) to give girls and boys a sex ed class with projector screen. The girls had there own separate class and we boys had ours.

Out doing remember getting anything out of it but for our principal nun--whom everyone was terrified of--berating us boys latter on after getting reports from the person that gave the lecture about all the boys laughing, giggling, and cracking jokes. LOL!!! I do recall our principal making sure she noted how well behaved and the complete opposite the girls acted. LOL!!!!

Really... I learned more from inappropriate content. Including the idea of "male grooming" (body hair).

Even years ealier as a kid my mother told me something along the lines of daddy's impregnate mommies by putting the x in y. So, I was terrorized of creating a baby even before I could [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] sperm.

Not sure I have anything against sex ed classes per se. Actually, I've been thinking about taking a college class on the female reproductive system. But I'm not sure that class in grade school did much of anything for me.

 

[patricius79]

Some of the info that was an eye-opener for me was related to stds. When I was young, I had this preconceived notion that they were obvious, with big disgusting sores that you'd spot immediately as long as you looked lol. I had no idea women can have chlamydia and not even know it. I was even more surprised to find out just how many people have herpes and that in some cases they simply don't show any symptoms. It changed my outlook on safe sex.

Thank you. I think I know what you mean. You mean that it made you more aware of how common stds are (?). Is that right?

I think that is a legitimate thing to be presenting in sex ed.

I think one of the most important things to educate teens on is the legalities of rape. Not every teen understands what actions are legally considered rape. It's important knowledge for boys to know that regardless of whatever "signals" you think a girl is sending you...if she says "no" then sexual contact is considered rape. It's also incredibly important info for young women to have before they find themselves waking up one morning wondering "what happened".

I think that is a legitimate thing to be presenting in sex ed, as well as being a good law.

Fact based programs would also include info on the law...although I suppose a program could also include some "quasi-factual" info related to psychology and sociology.

Oh, interesting. You don't think that psychological and sociological data related to sex before marriage is factual (but is rather only "quasi-factual"?

For example, I don't know the sociology or psychology well. But supposing that teens who have sex before marriage have much higher rates of depression and other mental health disorders, would you agree that that should be presented?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking in your last question...but I'll take a stab at it and you can clarify if my answer makes no sense....

If I were in control of the program, I'd have a small committee that meets annually or semi-annually for the purpose of reviewing the program materials/lessons and ensuring they are all up to date with regards to the facts.

You mean in case the law has changed, or if there is new medical information?

 

[SuperCloud]

This article, by a well-known Catholic chastity speaker Jason Evert says that some of the studies used to show that abstinence doesn't work are very flawed.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/zabstined.htm

He also suggests an analogy, built around the premise that the real issue is whether fornication, in itself, is harmful (whether pregnancy or STDs result or not).--and I agree that is the crucial issue, and that it is intrinsically and extremely destructive.

Now suppose the issue is drug use. Lots of kids, lets say are using drugs and are getting HIV doing drugs with dirty needles.

Group A says we need "comprehensive drug education", which includes explaining how to use drugs safely (i.e. without getting HIV), and making clean needles and syringes avaiable.

Group B says we should educate kids about the negative effects of drug use, including HIV, but not explain how to use drugs safely, and not make cleen needles or syringes, etc, available.

Group A says that their approach is more effective at reducing HIV, and they have numerous media reports and studies--whether valid or not-- to support this. They further say that Group B's approach doesn't work.

Group B says that Group A may be reducing HIV, but is encouraging drug use.

Which side which you side with? And how is this different from the issue of sex ed?

You are correct that "harm reduction" theory covers both sexual intercourse and drug use.

However, you don't need to go to the drugs and dirty needles thing. Alcohol is a factor in the spread on STDs and HIV too. All mind altering substances are. IV drug use and anal sex just dramatically increase your vulnerability to them.

Medical science already knows alcohol and marijuana--as mind altering substances that reduce inhibition and affect choices--are factors in the spread of STD among young people. Yet, they keep their lips zipped. Why? Because its more "cool" to pull out the zero tolerance card and call for total "abstinence" from these substances among the young. It's even illegal for a 16 year-old to buy and drink beer in most states even though the vast majority of 16 year-olds probably do drink beer. I got drunk for the first time at age 13. I wasn't even in high school. I'd say it was pretty common in Milwaukee for 12 and 13 year-olds to get drunk for the first time. Eh... I could even buy beer and hard alcohol at age 13 and 14 and I looked like I was was... about 10 or 9? LOL!!! I didn't start getting carded in Milwaukee corner stores and liquor stores until I came back home from the Marine Corps. The cops or mayors office or something must have decided they were going to tighten up on things. Make sure people followed the laws that is.

 

[patricius79]

Can I ask why this is such a topic of interest for you, and about your own age and whether you have children? Were you born in 1979? If so you'd be a young adult and one not likely to have teenage kids yet unless you began your family at an age that is younger than average.

I engaged with you quite a bit earlier in the summer on previous threads you created or participated in regarding sex education, and don't really want to invest much time doing so again without having a clearer understanding about your own reasonings for the inquiries.

Hi Artemis,

I don't remember what we talked about, unfortunately.

I really don't like to share about myself or my family publically. As you may realize, I am comfortable with acnowledging that I'm a practicing Catholic who agrees with Church teaching.

The reason I'm bringing this issue up is to understand issues of sexual morality and sociology better.

I have an interest in the sexual revolution and other issues related to it, including the debate between comprehensive sex education and abstinence only education, contraception, the decline of the family, divorce, use of inappropriate contentography, etc.

I intuit that the world's promotion of comprehensive sex ed--based on the supposed or actual reduction of STDs and teen pregnancies--is warped. But I want to understand the issue better.

One of my favorite authors is the Christian philospher Mary Rosera Joyce, who has helped me understand sexuality so much better.

She says: "sex education without character education is sexually naive and profoundly abusive".

She teaches that heterosexuality should be understood in relation to the Trinity, and that sexual feelings are extremely valuable energy for developing our interior character and spiritual life. But she says that acting out sexual feelings stunt our brain's development and our personal development.

Thoughts like that have led me to want to understand what is going on in America better.

 

[SuperCloud]

I think one of the most important things to educate teens on is the legalities of rape. Not every teen understands what actions are legally considered rape. It's important knowledge for boys to know that regardless of whatever "signals" you think a girl is sending you...if she says "no" then sexual contact is considered rape.

That's not sex education that jurisprudence and belongs in the same class as teaching Americans it's illegal for black people to ride in the front of the bus.