Another Reason NOT To Vote For BushFollow

Too late

Sure you can. It's a lot better than telling them to use condoms instead. One solution keeps kids from having pre-marital sex, the other pretty much encourages it. Which one is better?


That'd be nice if one solution actually did keep kids from having premarital sex instead of leading to skyrocketing teen pregnancy.

Fool.

Teaching kids about sex is a duel responsibility.


Dual. Unless you have to kill them at 40 paces if they don't learn.

Sorry, just wanted to see how it felt to attack someone's spelling.

Lol, Smash correcting spelling.....that's ridiculous.

Unless you have to kill them at 40 paces if they don't learn.

Just think of how quickly standardized test scores would raise though. Hmm...

Wrong topic, NT.


Edited, Tue Aug 10 13:27:43 2004 by Smasharoo

15-18 year old's could really care less what they're taught one way or the other. Most of the kids I went to school with laughed off sex ed and screwed like rabbits, whether they had condoms or not.

Hmmm... While I generally think that the use and effectiveness of contraceptives *should* be included in any kind of sex education curriculum, I can understand why the textbook writers chose the path they did.

Read the whole article folks. The books do promote abstinence as the "best" method of preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies. And from an absolute point of view (assuming that someone follows those directions), they're absolutely correct.

The books include suppliments for teaching the use and effectiveness of condoms and other contraceptives. There is nothing that prevents a school district from teaching both. The textbooks are written that way to allow for maximum flexibility. If a particular school wants to teach abstinence only, they can. Remember, public schools aren't the only schools that buy textbooks. The companies that write them want to sell as many as possible. If they write a textbook that includes both abtinence and condom use within the book itself, then they have to write different editions to meet different demand orders. By doing it this way, they only have to write one.

I'd be highly surprised if the books themselves were written that way because of any sort of religious or political agenda. It's purely about marketability and the bottom line. The fact is that we do have different camps on this issue. One wants nothing but abstinence taught, another wants condoms and contraceptives taught. By writing their books this way, they get to sell to both.

I was also surprised by this statement:




Hmmm... Is it wrong to write your textbooks on a subject like this to match what people want their kids to learn? Again. Parents presumably have a choice about what their kids are taught in terms of sex education, right? At what point do we decide that a minority's opinion *must* superceed the majorities (assuming this statistic is correct).

Additionally, given this information, does it not make a hell of a lot of sense to write the textbooks with the abstinence in the book and the contraceptive info in the suppliments? They're not pushing policy here, they're just writing their textbooks so that they can meet whatever policy might be in effect in any market across the nation. That's just smart business. I think you are all reading way too much into this.

Edited, Tue Aug 10 17:48:46 2004 by gbaji

Jophiel, you suck.

I must have slept through that one both in high school and the 10 times I heard it in the Army.

What are the odds of that happening? Gbaji?

Why is pre-marital sex wrong? I don't think it should be demonised by sex-ed teachers. I think they should focus on teaching about effective contraception rather than promoting abstinence. Abstinence should be left to the parents as it is not for teachers to impose views upon their students, I believe schools should be free from such parochial pressures and should be allowed to give a unbiased education that gives all the information to students.

I also think teenagers are likely to have pre-marital sex regardless of the efforts of teachers to convince them otherwise, teenagers are prone to follow their hormones and not their brains. So if they are taught about effective contraception then they will be able to protect themselves when the time comes.

If parents wish for their children to remain virgins till their wedding nights then they should be the ones to teach their kids those views not a teacher.

Ok. But to parallel that. I must have missed the part where the textbooks and suppliments provided by these companies taught abstinence only sex eduction "to the exclusion of teaching safe sex practices such as correct condom use and failure rates".


That's the problem I have here. The suppliments are provided *with* the textbooks. You buy them together as one package. The choice as to whether to teach abstinence only, or abstinence *and* condom use is up to the institution that buys the book. Both are provided, they just aren't both automatically bundled in the book. It's purely about marketing.


Oh. And Smash. I agree with you on the issue of teaching safe sex. I just disagree that we should *force* every institution to teach it the same exact way. If some school district in podunk wants to teach their kids abstinence only, then it's their right to do so. Isn't it?


I just find it amusing that the very "side" of this social issue who argue for "pro-choice", are against a decision that essentially gives teachers and parents a choice about what they teach their kids. Funny that.


I'm also pro-choice. However, I accept that people have the right to choose not just whether to have a freaking abortion or not. They have a right to choose what they teach their children. They have a right to have high rates of teen-age pregnancies if they want. I happen to also be a Republican, and I believe that they should then shoulder the responsiblity of that choice, which makes me a bit different from most pro-choicers. But then, I wonder how "honest" the pro-choice position is, when you have the self interest of pushing an agenda that would have to pay for all those extra mouths if people didn't have abortions instead?

Just a thought...