Should sex ed be a public or private matter?

Hinata

La Coquette
#1
Please read this article:

A Port St Lucie pastor is organizing a protest over using taxpayer money to fund safe sex messages- messages children's advocates argue are needed to combat St. Lucie County's high HIV/AIDS rate.

The controversy s over the budget of the Children's Services Council, which has taxing power and funds 51 child-related progrms. The council last year collected $6.9 million in county property taxes.

The council 2006-07 budget includes $69,725 to support a Planned Parenthood program called "teen Time," which encourages teenagers to "have all the information they need" and asks, "Do you need information and protection from sexually transmitted infections?"

The program is under attack by Bryan Longworth, 37, pastor at Port St. Lucie Covenant Tabernacle, who says he is using a network of local churches to garner backing for his protest.

"Young people having sex before marriage is risky and I don't want my property tax bills supporting that message," Longworth said. "Our goal is to de-fund Planned Parenthood and to stop the perversion of young people."

Kathy Basile, executive director of the Children's Services Council, responded that the council's budget also includes $171,902 for a program called "Teen Life Choices," which encourages abstinence.

Basile said programs that promote no sex and safe sex are needed in a county with the highest rate in the state of HIV/AIDS among blacks.

"I don't think anyone is encouraging youths to go out and have sex because all of our programs are about prevention," Basile said. "In the event kids are going to have sex we are trying to keep them as safe as possible."

Schools Superintendent Michael Lannon, who sits on the council's board of directors, also noted the high HIV/AIDS rate in the county.

"Our numbers are staggering," Lannon said. "We must confront the awful truth that we have people who are ill and dying within our community where high levels of education could impact individuals and save lives."
Just to give you a brief run down of why I feel this is such an important topic is because I come from close by this county. In St. Lucie County A population of less than 250,000. Maybe 1-2% of the population have HIV/AIDS. For that small a population that means that approx 2 to 3 thousand people infected. Possibly more.

Why should public funding not go towards sex eduation? It is the public's and parent's responsibility to make sure that their kids are educated.

If I must say, disease does not know ignorance and the longer people are ignorant to danger the more they put themselves at risk for that danger. Sex included. It seems to me that a religious leader would also understand that position. I just don't understand how this bit of money now is affecting him when so much more money goes into helping with HIV/AIDS treatment. Wouldn't this be better?

Just want to know your opinion.
 
M

Mecha

Guest
#2
It seems to me that a religious leader would also understand that position.
No, if the leader is of a population segment that doesn't factor in the fact that their policy* 1) doesn't work, 2) results in people dieing, 3) harms people. In fact, there are segements of the population that think they should die because of their actions (ie sex). Don't believe me on that one? Look up the national discussion around the cervical cancer vaccine. Or what people "joked" about when HIV/AIDS was considered the "gay disease".

*- funny how this pattern generalizes to the actors in the debates about abortion, universal health care, foreign policy.

Wouldn't this be better?
Obviously. The numbers support it. Cause and effect support it.

~Mecha
 

scitsofreaky

Registered Member
#3
I wonder where people get the idea that talking about safe sex is like giving kids permission to have sex. Throughout the different sex education classes (the biggest in 5th grade) I never got the message that it was ok to have sex, even as a horny teenager in junior and senior high when the message would have been somewhat welcomed (although contradictory to religious teachings, but how often does that stop a horny teen?). There is absolutely nothing sexy about sex ed, so if anything it had the opposite effect.

I think it belongs in school, at least in the manner I was taught, which was the physiology of sex and reproduction, which includes STDs. If you have unprotected sex you could contract a sexually transmitted disease, that is a biological fact, so why shouldn't it be taught in school?

Most opponents seem to be living in a fantasy world where everyone is believes as they do and everyone is strictly monogomous, despite the fact that this isn't the case for any category of people in America. People have sex with other people, ususally with more than one other person. That is reality, and teachers need to teach reality.
 
G

Gryf

Guest
#4
Public. If you won't keep your kids from spreading the virus and other diseases, the schools will do it for you. Sexual conduct is something that affects many people, not just one.

Don't look back. The lemmings are gaining on you.
 
I

IntheNet

Guest
#5
Hinata said:
Why should public funding not go towards sex eduation? It is the public's and parent's responsibility to make sure that their kids are educated.

If I must say, disease does not know ignorance and the longer people are ignorant to danger the more they put themselves at risk for that danger. Sex included. It seems to me that a religious leader would also understand that position. I just don't understand how this bit of money now is affecting him when so much more money goes into helping with HIV/AIDS treatment. Wouldn't this be better?

Just want to know your opinion.
Hinata: Good topic... the article in question does not cite any success percentages for sexual education and I would say that most courses on it encourage sexual activity. So what really is the point?

Yes you are right; a permissive society wherein more and more folks are engaging in illicit relationships has a greater percentage on the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Therefore the issue of sexual education is raised. Does such education reduce the spread of such diseases or reduce the sexual activity? I think the jury is still out on that one.

I object to such sex education, in public schools or elsewhere, simply because I suspect they encourage such activity. Schools are not the forum for the discussion of sex nor should they be. They have a tough enough time providing eduction of core curriculla; let's leave them at that.

Social problems are still going to exist; i.e., drug abuse, gun violence, etc. and both of those issues are just as pervasive as sexual diseases. Should we institute course work for those issues too?

I see nothing wrong with sexual education as an elective in a Community College type setting, where participants are old enough to give it due attention but making it a course in high school or secondary school will just emphasize the subject and encourage it, in my opinion.
 

Hoosier_Daddy

Registered Member
#6
I believe, no I know, that unless we lock our children away in a closet leaving them completely unexposed to the media and peer groups, they're going to learn unhealty sexual habits. It's all fine and good to teach abstinence, but the fact is we know that doesn't work as well as we would like. There's an old saying, and excuse me for being graphic, that a stiff dick has no conscience.

I would much rather have our children taught that there are ways to fullfill their sexual urges in a safe and responsible way, other than masturbation. The last thing on a young individuals mind while in the heat of passion with another is what Mom and Dad think about the right and wrong of having sex at a young age. Sex education is a tool to remind them that, as I said before, they can act out on those urges safely.


Hoosier.
 
G

Gryf

Guest
#7
IntheNet said:
Social problems are still going to exist; i.e., drug abuse, gun violence, etc. and both of those issues are just as pervasive as sexual diseases. Should we institute course work for those issues too?
We already have classes on cultural issues and good citizenship. Sex education should be a mandatory part of our courses on physical health.

but making it a course in high school or secondary school will just emphasize the subject and encourage it, in my opinion.
To quote a person I spoke with after my sex ed class, "YUCK. I never want to have sex again." After speaking with others, more recently, I've decided that this tends to be the average reaction. What annoys me, though, is that gay men are under-represented, particularly with us being a high risk group. Ah well.
 
I

IntheNet

Guest
#8
Gryf said:
We already have classes on cultural issues and good citizenship. Sex education should be a mandatory part of our courses on physical health...
Two questions:

So you would be equally supportive of drug abuse course and a gun handling course in schools as well?

You have any data to support the success of sex education courses in schools; i.e., said courses reducing said activity or does the course promote said activity?
 
G

Gryf

Guest
#10
IntheNet said:
So you would be equally supportive of drug abuse course and a gun handling course in schools as well?
We're already taught about the dangers inherent in drug abuse as a part of our physical health courses. I don't know one way or the other on gun handling courses, and I would first have to know if a particular program were effective to the end of reducing gun-related deaths before weighing in on the issue.

You have any data to support the success of sex education courses in schools; i.e., said courses reducing said activity or does the course promote said activity?
It depends upon the program. "Abstinence-only" programs seem to be oddly counter-productive, though. You can have a good sex ed program or a completely shitty one.
 
Top