Asymmetrical Information

The finding that all sex-ed is useless is consistent with Judith Harris's The Nurture Assumption and No Two Alike, both highly recommended. Doh...

Thank you for noticing that—when I first read the reports on the study that was what jumped out at me, but I haven't seen anyone else pick up on it. If a contentious government program wastes a couple hundred million dollars and has no serious negative side effects, that's actually not bad at all, in my book.

I'm not willing to say for sure, once and for all, that abstinence-only education has no negative effects. And saying that abstinence-only doesn't decrease condom use isn't the same as saying that that other forms of sex-ed don't increase condom use—which one did the study say (yeah, I'm lazy)? But this might mean that this is a fight not worth having.

If this study is correct, it implies that....
The finding that all sex-ed is useless ....

Is an inferrance the same as an implication the same as a finding?

Jane wrote "the explosive finding, which is that abstinence-based education makes no difference in adolescent sexual behaviour"

She then made an inference from that finding to allege an implication. The study did not imply it. She inferred it. That is to say she derived her thesis from her analysis of the study, that ALL sex education is useless.

Tim grabbed the ball and christened it a "finding" that all sex education is useless.

I propose the next poster have the flexible sylogicistic capability to state "There is now incontrevertible proof, that any instruction related to sexual education is totally useless"

And saying that abstinence-only doesn't decrease condom use isn't the same as saying that that other forms of sex-ed don't increase condom use—which one did the study say (yeah, I'm lazy)?

The study found no significant differences in behaviors (any of them, really) between abstinence-only sex ed and other forms of sex ed, whether in using birth control or at what age people had sex.

The study did not claim that either was completely ineffective compared to no birth control, merely that the two could not be distinguished. However, given that each was ostensibly aiming towards different goals (and with different obvious downsides), it's certainly a reasonable thing to wonder, as Meagan does.

There was no control group of children who received no school-provided sex education, so the conclusion that all sex-ed is ineffective is invalid. The proper conclusion is that abstinence-based sex-ed is as effective as conventional sex-ed, though the actual effectiveness is (still) unknown.

I just read the study's methodology. The study does not compare the effects of abstinence based education with the effects of other types of sex education. It compares the effects of receiving abstinence based education with the effects of not receiving abstinence based education. Youth in both the experimental group and the control group may also have received other types of sex education or they may have received no other sex education at all.

You cannot draw any conclusions about any other type of sex-ed program from this study. You can only draw a conclusion about abstinence based programs. And that conclusion is that they are a waste of money.

Norm, you can only draw that conclusion if the schools were using the Title V money to supplement their sex-ed expenditures. If, instead, the schools were substituting the expenditure, then the question becomes how much money was expended per pupil in the control group vs the abstinence-ed group.

Doesn't the study account for about 1% of all Title V programs for abstinence based sex ed in existence? How comprehensive was the study?

Further, the particular program in question, was it ongoing or just a few sessions? Cause kids barely learn history or science, drilled in day after day, year after year.

Further, the particular program in question, was it ongoing or just a few sessions? Cause kids barely learn history or science, drilled in day after day, year after year.

From the report: "Although all programs offered more than 50 contact hours, making them relatively intense among programs funded by the Title V, Section 510 grant, two of the programs—ReCapturing the Vision and FUPTP—were particularly intensive. These two programs met every day of the school year and youth could participate in FUPTP for up to four years."

The four programs varied rather a lot, from after-school to during school, from electives to mandatory. The schools generally had some amount of other sex ed teaching.

The program that showed the only statistically significant effect (and a strong one) on knowledge of STDs took place in the one community that had a nine-week health and PE class that did not include much on STDs or contraceptives, and no other sex ed programs. The other three programs had other school sex ed curricula, and showed no significant difference from having the extra program.

At the same time, the program that showed this improvement also had scores on knowledge from the control group that were significantly higher than people in the other groups. This was the Powhatan, VA program, that served mostly middle and working-class two parent white non-Hispanic families in a semi-rural setting. The other three programs served mostly black and Hispanic families from poor single-parent homes. The effects of family background were thus enormous, and much larger than any sex ed effect. (Though having some sex ed seemed to help when it came to knowledge of STDs/ineffectiveness of the Pill in preventing them.)

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but the people who received Title V education, that doesn't mean that they didn't receive regular sex ed too. It just means that their education stressed abstinence, no?

Abstinence education by itself, I seriously doubt it would have much impact on HIV/aids. But with protection and encouragement of monogamy (at least in the short-term--hiv transmittal is especially high early on, making sharing partners is especially risky).

Anthony, you wrote, "If, instead, the schools were substituting the expenditure, then the question becomes how much money was expended per pupil in the control group vs the abstinence-ed group."

I think you're misinterpreting the situation. It is not the case that participation in an abstinence program means that you don't participate in a different sex-ed program as well. That would have been an interesting study, but that's not the study they did. As A Million Paths notes, the study they did is one in which they controlled exactly one variable, participation in the abstinence program. Some of the youth in the experimental group (assigned to abstinence programs) also received sex education from other sources, some of them didn't. The same is true for the youth in the control group. The only difference between the experimental group and the control group is that the experimental group got the abstinence program, and the control group didn't.

I'm curious as to why anybody is surprised by this result. These programs have been studied before (although not quite this rigorously), and the outcome has been the same. It just doesn't work.

Abstinence, in and of itself, has a monumental impact on HIV/aids transmission and on unintended pregnancy. (Abstinence is 100% effective.) Abstinence education only has an effect when it increases abstinence. If abstinence is taught as an alternative to birth control in which "you don't get none" and "you don't have any fun", I have no difficulty understanding why it is not effective. I can assure you that the nuns, religious brothers and priests who provided my abstinence education took a more positive approach and were far more effective.

Isolated from a moral perspective that sex outside marriage is wrong, abstinence is merely "doing without" what your friends are doing, hopefully with high quality condoms. However, I find it fascinating that high school students who can pass the "condom on the banana" test can't seem to pass the "condom on an erect penis" test when the time comes. This failure is documented approximately 1.3 million times each year, though biology says it actually occurs far more frequently.

My takeaway from the study is that, if it does not delay the onset of sexual activity (particularly promiscuous sexual activity), sex education of any type may do more harm than good, particularly when taught by those who see no benefit to chastity.

(Yes, I am an "old fart", completely inexperienced in the manifold joys of "hooking-up" and incapable of doing anything more than sitting in the back seat of a car.)

Looked at the study, and it Norm is right. There is only one correlation done, and that is for abstinence education w/ and w/o "services as normal". "Services as normal" was a controlled variable. There may be many studies that could have been run that were not, but you can't base statistical results (as the inputs were broken out by this study) on data you don't have.

If you had the raw data, you might have been able to draw a statistically significant distinction between non-abstinence based sex education w/ and w/o other forms of education (i.e. "services as normal") or not. That correlation wasn't done, and the raw data was not provided.

The more interesting things to me were the other presumably statistically significant findings that none of the current set of sex education programs significantly affected youths ability to distinguish the risks of various sexual activities. Basically, they teach (all) "Sex is (equally) Baaaaaad". Hmmm, no surprise that's what most of the parents want them taught.

If this study is correct, it implies that all sex-ed is useless, a result I don't find particularly surprising, actually.

jane, honey, you can't make that inference. The study is about age and frequency of sexual experiences; you can't infer that all sex ed is useless, because sex ed might, for example, result in fewer unplanned pregnancies, lower STD rates, etc.

I wonder if it matters at all that one of the four programs in the final study was targeted primarily toward females. Would that skew the results one way or another?

Or would selecting 4 programs out of some 700 abstinence programs affect the results if one is selecting programs that best fit with one's statistical measurment requirements or capabilities.

From the report,

"On the follow-up survey, youth were given a list of 13 diseases
and asked whether or not each was a sexually transmitted disease; nine
were actual STDs and four were not STDs. Youth in the program group
identified an average of 69 percent of these diseases correctly (Table 4).
This rate is two percentage points higher than the average among youth
in the control group, and the difference is statistically significant."

So after 40 plus hours of instruction the sex-ed group was scoring
only 2% better at knowing the names of sexually transmitted diseases
than the control group that had no sex education at all.

Wow. The marginal impact of education is less than I would have
expected.

Look I don't believe that teaching abstinence is a practical strategy
for teenagers. But regardless of that if the item in question only
increases the odds by two percent on something as easy as recognizing
the name of a disease, why in the world would we expect it to have
any impact on behavior?

More data to the same point. From the report:

"In contrast to high levels of knowledge about the risks of unprotected sex,
study youth are less knowledgeable about the potential health risks from
STDs. On a three-item [0-1] scale measuring their understanding of these risks,
youth in the program and control groups had nearly identical mean scores
of 0.52 and 0.51, respectively, which corresponded to a typical youth answering
only about half the items of the scale correctly (Table 4)."

So again, despite forty plus hours of instruction there was no measurable
difference in the understanding of the two groups with respect to health
risks of sexually transmitted diseases.

Wow. Maybe the real message is that teachers don't make a difference.

It goes on and on there's item after item that shows the same no measureable
difference in knowledge.

And then I read this:

"Remaining site-level findings show that My Choice, My Future! increased youth knowledge
of STD and pregnancy risks, and changed their perceptions of the effectiveness of condoms
and birth control pills. Compared to youth in the control group, youth in the program
group for My Choice, My Future! were more likely to identify STDs correctly and to have
greater knowledge of both unprotected sex risks and the potential health consequences of
STDs. All differences were statistically significant. With respect to perceptions, program
group youth in My Choice, My Future! were less likely than their control group counterparts to
perceive condoms as effective at preventing a range of STDs. Youth in the program group
were also less likely than control group youth to perceive birth control pills as effective in
preventing STDs. As with the knowledge measures, differences across all of the measures of
perceptions were statistically significant for My Choice, My Future!"

So one of the four tested programs did have a positive impact on knowledge across
a broad range of issues. Sounds good. (A naive person might imagine that further
attention will be directed at this program.)

It's also worth noting that the student body of My Choice, My Future! had an above
median average national income. And that most of its students, both the test group
and the control group where white and non-Hispanic and came from two-parent families.
None of this was true of the other three programs.

It could be that the virtue isn't in My Choice, My Future! but instead the real significance
is that white children from two-parent families can be educated in forty hours while
the same thing with black or Hispanic children from mostly single-parent families would
have shown no detectable learning.

"Sex" - "Education"

Think about those two words and what they refer to. The first one describes one of the three absolutely primal functions of living organisms, which are reproducation, eating and eliminating waste. It is what all life in the universe has been doing since it became alive (please don't tell me that it happened in 7 days).

The second word describes a modern invention, probably less than a few thousand years old, which involves one species that has developed a complex brain. The members of that species have become aware that if they formally transfer knowledge and skills among one another, the species is more successful. However, the jury is still out whether this modern invention will last very long.

Whether education is successful or not, the eating, waste elimination, and sex MUST continue for the species to continue to exist. This is what all life is about, and attempts to try to suppress these activities thru education have a very long history to overcome.

I find it fascinating that high school students who can pass the "condom on the banana" test can't seem to pass the "condom on an erect penis" test when the time comes.

That's because the teacher isn't there handing out the condoms when the time comes. It takes a certain amount of planning ahead to have one on hand - which kids aren't good at anyway, and some won't do because that's admitting that they are planning to have sex. It also takes a little money. Forty years ago when I was hoping to find a need for some, a package cost like 1 or 2 hours pay at my dishwashing job, but the cost seems much more trivial now. Yet I don't know what ghetto kids would consider a significant cost hurdle - and that's where grammar schools are having to put in nurseries for students' babies...

Perhaps, a "Your baby, your responsibility" campaign would be more effective. Or "Play now, pay forever"? You can't eliminate the consequences, so you had better let them know what kind of life they can expect. Oh, and sharply decrease the state-funded marginal benefits of single parenthood -- get a sizable portion of the money from the father. You could also, just possibly, provide a wedding benefit for those who, having created a child, get/stay married in order to raise the child.
The fact that many/most urban single mothers, especially teenage ones, go on welfare immediately, means that they do indeed recognize the consequences of sex -- free money, free apartment, etc., and rationally plan accordingly.

m, maybe something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_0uOsfBaAY

I loved taking sex ed in high school. For me it was Napping 101.

The problem with any, ANY sex education is in thinking that the problem is a lack of knowledge.

The only politically viable way to stem the tide of unwanted pregnancies is to punish the father. He pays support, goes to jail, or goes in the military.

The intended consequences would be less unwanted children. Also, the military is a great place for a young and dumb kid to mature, so you are going to get a more productive member of society. For that matter, make the mother enlist as well.

The unintended consequences would probably mean more abortions (of which I am not a fan) and probably a whole lot more penis-goes-where? conversations.

So, it's not a perfect solution, but what we are doing now isn't working.

Reagan Fan - The millitary has quite enough sexually irresponsible young men as it is, from what I've gleaned from female friends in the service and those involved with servicemen. But at least it gets them out of the country impregnating foreign women, eh?

And that saves on daycare costs.

No sex with local girls before marriage...

How does one study biology without studying sex?

" This is what all life is about, and attempts to try to suppress these activities thru education have a very long history to overcome."

You are so wise. I love the weird logic and reasoning people try to use to set out a A to B and thus C type argument. It sure does make you feel smart and I'm certain that when you use it on others on the spot everyone must agree with your genius.

But you left out D, point 4, which is everything has also been dying since the beginning. And with your logic we shouldn't try to delay dying from occuring since it has been happening from the beginning.

No one ever said we should stop sex from happening. I think we can all agree that is foolish. But good society should attempt to delay the onset of sexual activity until the participants are more mature or at least within the confines of a relationship/marriage that will be willing and ready to raise the child that sex brings forth. After all, sex is the catalyst for reproduction and has been since the beginning. It is not 100% reliable, but that does not mean those who participate in it should not be willing to take care and nurture the child that sometimes results.

Or we can just jab a spike through its head and pretend that the child was just an unintended consequence of our own selfish pursuits (personal pleasure).

If you're willing to have sex with a person, please do it in the confines of a relationship where you're willing to raise that child into adulthood together.

Well cdub you can always go oral or anal. No need to worry about those messy children.

Alright I just took sex ed like, two years ago. I had an exellent teacher. I didn't learn much but the class in general made me have a conversation with myself about the decisions I'd be making in a few years. And all in all, I feel that this instruction helped lead me to make more positive long term benefit type decisions. Maybe it's because I am more receptive to education because I have an asperation to learn unlike many others. But regardless It helped me and thats a good enough reason why this system abstinance based on not, Teaches valuable decision making skills. Thats just me though.

I don't know whether sex ed has any effect on adolescent sexual behavior, but it should probably be maintained for its sheer entertainment value.

By the time I had it, the lunch table had ensured I had a decent understanding of the mechanics and the consequences (I can remember hearing this as early as fourth or fifth grade), but there were surely no more comical moments in my education than the sight of a former college athlete struggling to explain the miracle of life without lapsing into locker-room language. With his socks pulled up to his knees. You can't buy that kind of thing.

I used to be for sex education in school. But then I heard that some of the exams would be oral.

-- Rich Little, performing a Ronald Reagan impersonation

This study shows that abstinence-only sex ed is not working. It can be inferred from the data that there is only a slim chance that it will be capable of working in the foreseeable future, particularly as its backers envision.

Another foolish idea goes down the tubes.

"This study shows that abstinence-only sex ed is not working....Another foolish idea goes down the tubes."

How it is foolish to suggest that teenagers should not engage in behavior that causes: disease, death, emotional disorder, and also temporary pleasure, is beyond me.

The costs of temporary pleasure are hardly worth the risks, and the a condom does not even come close to solving half the consequences arising from teenagers having sex.

There is little doubt that having a course on sex will encourge kids to have sex. Many will want to have sex anyway. But suggesting that educating someone in doing something does not encourage them to do it is silly. We have drivers education clases to encourage people to learn how to be good drivers.

Sometimes you have to make the choice between doing the right thing and doing the easy thing. Just because its easy to throw your hands in the air and say "they want to have sex anyway so lets teach them how" doesn't mean you should. Society makes choices all the time about what is good and bad for society and I see no reason why we shouldn't take every possibly opportunity to encourage kids not to have sex. Being taught what a condom is does not mean you have to tell them explicitly how to use it. I never got taught in that kind of detail how to pay a credit card bill or how to write a check or how to setup a computer even though it was necessary for me to learn how to do so.

Answer this... Would you suggest that if we had classes instructing students on how to pick pocket other students or rob from grocery stores that thefts would not increase?

OK, so Abstinence Only education doesn't work. What about "Don't Sleep Around" education? I'm in my twenties and had plenty of school-sponsored sex ed through junior high and high school. But somehow, I have a numerous contingent of friends who are now in the throes of dealing with symptoms stemming from HPV. It's a scary thing to face sterility at age 25. All are smart, college-educated women from upper-middle class families, and yet they are all stupid enough to have engaged in unprotected sex several times with multiple partners. I have shocked all of them when I have said something like, "I'm so glad I don't have to deal with this, having only had sex with my husband." They all know me quite well, and still can't believe it, since monogamy (not to be confused with serial monogamy) is almost completely extinct in our generation. Indeed, I am the only (young, non-religious) person I know (besides my husband) who has only had sex with one person.

I'm not saying kids will buy into monogamy any more than they'll buy into abstinence. But they do understand that promiscuity is still (mostly) frowned upon. Maybe they need to be reminded that serial monogamy is slutty behaviour too and why it's so bad.

Just because its easy to throw your hands in the air and say "they want to have sex anyway so lets teach them how" doesn't mean you should. Posted by cdub

True, however we dont.

Nobody is teaching kids how to have sex. What is taught is usually the functions of the organs involved, the medical science of pregnancy, disease risks, psychological and emotional risks and avoidance of pregnancy and disease.

Sex is fairly instinctive and simple. Nobody teaches animals, and they manage quite well. Children, many of whom are smarter than animals, figure it out on their own, though often comparing notes in the process.

cdub, I genuinely don't understand how people come to view sex the way that you do. Can you describe how you arrived at your current views about it? I don't want any prurient details, but just a rough idea how you think your experiences were similar to mainstream experiences, or not.

Everyone seems to have missed the explosive finding, which is that abstinence-based education makes no difference in adolescent sexual behaviour.

Jane,
There is a problem with that assumption. Adolescents do not cloister themselves upon leaving the classroom. Those receiving abstinence only-education are not getting only abstinence-only education. Most of their peers are recieving education that involves many alternatives. Not only do they talk with those differently educated youths, they screw 'em too. More than genetic information gets exchanged in those sessions.

Growing up I lived in Arizona, Germany, and Chicago. This was while I was in school. And it was not through the military.

It's pretty easy to look around and see people who do not take sexual relationships seriously. This is causing a tremendous amount of hurt. It is literally also causing people to die and be affected with a lot of nasty diseases.

On the plus side it helps those people to feel closer, and generally they love each other. More and more it seems like it's just for the instant pleasure from an orgasm. That to me is appalling and shows a huge lack of understand of what sex is.

The person who said "What is taught is usually the functions of the organs involved, the medical science of pregnancy, disease risks, psychological and emotional risks and avoidance of pregnancy and disease." is something I can agree with. That's how it should be. The problem is I see a lot of people arguing for exactly the opposite and using sex-ed as a platform for their neo-flower power sexual revolution where they think everyone should have casual sex and anyone who waits to have sex before they are married are prudish fools.

The simple fact is that society has encouraged people to not have sex until they are married and shunned the behavoir of those who act contrary for generations. For thousands of years. Just because we don't live up to our ideals is not a reason for abandoning those ideals.

I for one think its noble to aspire to something that you may not live up to. Of course, I think it is entirely possible for everyone not to have sex until they are married. I don't think we need to pass a law and I don't think people should lose their jobs or be persecuted if they don't behave that way.

But there is nothing out of mainstream with suggesting that people should not have sex until they are married and also suggesting that along with the good there are alot of serious emotional, mental, and health risks associated with having sex.

When you have sex in teh confines of a committed marriage, it's amazing how every single one of those risks pretty much goes away.

So, sexual behavior is an expression of culture, and not from a series of half-hour classes received while an adolescent?

Who would have thought it?

And Christina, it isn't just young, 25 year olds who are stupid about sex. I work at a university, and 2 men were fired recently because they were 'dating' women that worked for them, and they knew this was against the rules.

Re: serious nasty side-effects. Perhaps abstinence-only education doesn't have them, but we have plenty already, just as an effect of living in this society: we have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world, and 50% of ALL pregnancies - to women of all ages - are unplanned. That's what this education - whether abstinence-only, or comprehensive sexuality education - is designed to counteract.

Secondly, there have been studies showing that comprehensive sex ed has
positive results. This is a limited study based on several curricula that are commonly available. It is not a governement-sponsored nationwide study because - surprise! there is no government money for nationwide comprehensive sex ed on a large scale.

Would you suggest that if we had classes instructing students on how to pick pocket other students or rob from grocery stores that thefts would not increase?

I don't think the analogy holds. You would never say "I know that most kids are going to pick a few pockets. I just want to make sure if they do, they don't get caught." But some people would take that view towards sex, particularly in neighiborhoods where the teen pregnancy rate is already quite high.

I could understand abstinence only programs in communities where the message might stick.

I recall a cartoon from about 1991, 'For Better or Worse', or 'Foxtrot'. Girl sitting at table, doing homework, family in kitchen behind her. 'Some of the parents are afraid that studying sex ed will make kids want to DO it all the time. Sure didn't work that way with math.'

Most of the kids that the abstinence based training reached and affected, I imagine, were the ones that would be least likely to get intimate anyway. As a training program, we should expect it to be most effective by those most likely to be learning -- high achievers. Of course, those that struggle anyway are less likely to master math, or English, or .. sex ed. Meanwhile we splash money around in big, reinforcing piles, enriching the sexually titillating movie, music, clothes, TV and radio industries. How do you tell a single, straight message that abstinence is good, when adults in the community are cheating, when featured TV and movie characters sleep around, when advertising all point up the 'need' to be 'sexy', that is, sexually provocative.

Do what I say, and not what I do, indeed.

"I see a lot of people arguing for exactly the opposite and using sex-ed as a platform for their neo-flower power sexual revolution where they think everyone should have casual sex and anyone who waits to have sex before they are married are prudish fools."

Yes, and when I close my eyes and rub them really hard I see all sorts of weird sparkling lights, but that doesn't mean they're actually there. In the real world, what we have are lots of people - of varying personal views and experiences about sex - who support comprehensive sex ed (abstinence plus) in order to try to: reduce teen pregnancies, reduce the spread of STDs, fight misconceptions and harmful confusions, and generally try to give young people enough information and support that they can make decisions that are as intellectually and emotionally informed as possible (which could include having only 'serious' sex or not having sex until marriage).

Now alternately, I could add that what I see are some people who are using abstinence-only ed as a platform for the views they wish to impose on society, who think that nobody should have casual sex, and that anyone who has sex before marriage is a perverse slut - but perhaps those are only more strange sparkly lights.

Although they tend to say as much, so I dunno (although of course there are others whose support for ab-ed seems to be based on clearly pragmatic grounds, or both ideological and pragmatic. And certainly actual sex ed proponents to tend to share a certain value system, in which sex is something that people do, something that can have both wonderful and tragic consequences.

"I think it is entirely possible for everyone not to have sex until they are married. I don't think we need to pass a law and I don't think people should lose their jobs or be persecuted if they don't behave that way."

How freaking noble of you.

A conservative (though intelligent and scrupulously honest) friend of mine points out some flaws in some of the coverage of various "abstinence-only" studies.

http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000930.html

http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/001154.html

If anyone has a reaction to either of these, I'd like to hear it.

I liked your friends skeptical attitude, Ryan. Seems to me he has done
a great job of adding things up.

cdub said:

You are so wise. I love the weird logic and reasoning people try to use to set out a A to B and thus C type argument. It sure does make you feel smart and I'm certain that when you use it on others on the spot everyone must agree with your genius.

But you left out D, point 4, which is everything has also been dying since the beginning. And with your logic we shouldn't try to delay dying from occuring since it has been happening from the beginning.

No one ever said we should stop sex from happening. I think we can all agree that is foolish. But good society should attempt to delay the onset of sexual activity until the participants are more mature or at least within the confines of a relationship/marriage that will be willing and ready to raise the child that sex brings forth. After all, sex is the catalyst for reproduction and has been since the beginning. It is not 100% reliable, but that does not mean those who participate in it should not be willing to take care and nurture the child that sometimes results.

---------

FYI, my personal situation is that I am 57, have been married since I was 34, and have no children, by choice, because I have no interest in reproduction. My wife and I are "the exceptions that prove the rule."

I agree with you that the world would be better off if young people waited to get married and then have children, preferably till they had completed education are were at least financially stable. My point is that this is a modern concept, rooted in affluent western society, that is competing against evolutionary instincts that are pretty strongly entrenched. Hell, even I have the urge - it manifests itself as horniness - but I know how to control the results.

Regarding dying, I have a mother-in-law who is miserable because modern medicine is keeping her alive by denying her the foods that she desparately craves, because they (salt and sugar) will hasten her demise. Dying is also very natural, and western societies are very poorly equipped to deal with the upcoming wave of baby boomers who are going to demand every possible medical treatment to stave it off. I think they should just go quietly into the nite - I tell everyone I know that I don't want to be kept alive in misery. I just hope that I never lose the ability to make that decision when it becomes necessary.

So, yes, we need to deal with the fact that dying is natural and inevitable, and help people to accept it. Art Buchwald's recent experience is a great start.

I thought that abstinence, properly coupled with encouraging manogomous relationships (1 at a time, not for life--the viral load is especially high in the first few weeks of transmission, so being in multiple relationships at the time of infection greatly increases the spread of the disease.) and condom use was exceptionally effective in Uganda. (The ABC campaign: Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condom.)

Anyway, probably as important as teaching how to use a condom is making students feel comfortable buying them, having them around, and replacing them when they get old.

Arguments for:
1) They're going to do it anyway.
2) At least we should teach them the mechanics.
3) Teach them them the consequences in a non-judgemental way.
4) Arm them with more than just rudimentary knowledge

Arguments against:
1) A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
2) Who pays for the consequences?
3) Even though most kids would handle the responsibility in a mature manner, some/many wouldn't.

Of course, the above arguments should be applied to firearms as well as sex ed, right? If we taught firearm safety in high school, just like we teach sex ed, we'd have to hand out free handguns on the theory that they would prevent a crime. Just as long as we do it non-judgementally.

Of course, the above arguments should be applied to firearms as well as sex ed, right? If we taught firearm safety in high school, just like we teach sex ed, we'd have to hand out free handguns on the theory that they would prevent a crime.

Handing out condoms is not like handing out handguns. Handing out free handguns would be analogous to handing out free penises.

A better analogy would be making sure kids knew how to use a gun's safety, knew the consequences of gun ownership, knew how to clean and fire a gun, etc. especially in areas where over 50% of kids would wind up shot by their lovers before they graduated high school.

Of course, sex ed hinges on the notion that teen pregnancy happens because kids don't know how to use condoms. What if kids know how, but don't want to?

Ryan-
Guns can prevent rapes, murders, etc.. So we should take those populations most at risk for gun violence and teach them proper handling, safety, control (ie., accuracy). And since not everyone would be able to afford a crime-prevention handgun, we make free handguns available. Yes, some would forget what they learned in the heat of the moment, but many crimes would be prevented. And if gun violence inexplicably goes up, it just means we need more education and more handguns.

m - I'm still not sure about the analogy. Handing out guns increases a person's physical capacity for illegal violence. Handing out condoms doesn't increase a person's capacity for sex.

Also, most people have sex during their lifetimes. Most people don't shoot someone with a gun.

Guns can prevent rapes, murders, etc.. So we should take those populations most at risk for gun violence

Does 'at risk' mean the victims or the perpetrators? If it was the victims, there are probably some folks who would be interested in seeing the results of that type of study.

The BIGGEST problem with sex education in the USA is that no one teaches it until the kids already know the basic information already.

If you go to college and take a math class, and the professor starts you out with basic addition (1+1=2), how much attention would YOU pay?

So, kids learn about sex from their peers, and then finally this "sex ed" class begins to teach them the truth - except there are a lot of lies mixed in with that truth. Well, there are a lot of lies mixed in with what the student has learned from their peers, also - but when it is clear that everyone is lying about sex and relationships, how does anyone know who to trust?

I remember the one sex ed class that I had in school. 5th grade. They separated the boys from the girls, and had the only male teacher in the school come in to teach the boys. What did he teach us? Nothing. Besides the fact that he barely touched the subject of *female* sexuality, the information about *male* sexuality amounted to a vague description of wet dreams. The only illustrations were cartoon-like drawings which did not help at all. When the teacher asked for questions, the students asked stupid ones. When one student asked about "boobs", the teacher claimed he had no idea what "boobs" were.

No damn wonder that sex education makes no difference.

If we want sex education to make a difference, it has to be *real* sex education, and it has to start in kindergarten. Most of all, U.S. society has to GROW UP and stop treating sex as if it is something dirty.

B-
Why wait until kindergarten? We can start with fun games of "Hunt the Zipper" when their in pre-school. No reason to protect & promote innocence. And if sexual activity inexplicably goes up, it just means we need more and earlier sex education. Apparently Aldous Huxley's satire has become your new reality.

No reason to protect & promote innocence.

Because there are so many 14 year olds who have no clue what sex is? If we don't tell kids about lying, maybe they'll never be dishonest either.

I can't imagine ignorance being a substitute for morals.

Ryan-
As B, who I was responding to, clearly states that sex ed should begin in kindergarten, I will have to assume that your postulation of a 14year old kindergartner is a prelude to a punchline. You are right that ignorance is not a substitute for morals, though I think you will have a very long search finding a non-abstinence focused sex ed program that even mentions morals except as some prissy Victorian "ideal".
Regarding guns -- I think you are missing the point when you say that most people don't shoot others. The point of the proposed gun education is to prevent crime -- to teach proper technique so that gun crime can be prevented. Of course, "thou shall not kill" could not be part of the lesson as that would be to Judeo-Christian specific and might fade in to teaching "morality". If some misuse their free "crime prevention" handguns, then, we just need more and better education. Please don't judge the proposed program by results --it is intentions that matter and my intentions to prevent gun violence are noble ones, don't you agree?

Comments are Closed.