Do you support abstinence only sex ed, or comprehensive sex ed (meaning students are taught both the benefits of abstinence, plus info on contraceptives, etc.)?
I support comprehensive sex ed, because, study after study shows that regardless if a student has had an abstinence only curricula or one that includes info on contraceptives and prevention, the rate of sexual activity is the same (50% of students have had sex by the time they graduate from high school). The difference between the two groups, however, is that the students who have had abstinence only education have higher rates of pregnancy and STIs compared to the other group of kids in the comprehensive sex ed curriculas.
Besides being concerned with this because I am a health educator, I'm upset that the Bush administration puts so much money towards the abstinence only programs when they are obviously failing programs. This money comes out of my (and all of your) pockets...
I support comprehensive sex ed, because, study after study shows that regardless if a student has had an abstinence only curricula or one that includes info on contraceptives and prevention, the rate of sexual activity is the same (50% of students have had sex by the time they graduate from high school). The difference between the two groups, however, is that the students who have had abstinence only education have higher rates of pregnancy and STIs compared to the other group of kids in the comprehensive sex ed curriculas.
Besides being concerned with this because I am a health educator, I'm upset that the Bush administration puts so much money towards the abstinence only programs when they are obviously failing programs. This money comes out of my (and all of your) pockets...
posted by:
|
Michigan
|
-
Re: Sex Education
Wed, February 4, 2004 - 9:30 PMI was unaware it was for abstinence only programs. We can always write our senators and congress to ratify that. I'm happy he's doing something about it, but I think perhaps if it were comprehensive, and the truth were told about the failure rate of contraceptives and the possible links to cancer, the NOW crew, and other special interest groups would do whatever they can to blockade it.
-
-
Re: Sex Education
Thu, February 5, 2004 - 5:55 AMThe failure rate of contraceptives is pretty low when used correctly and consistently. That comes down to education on how to use them. Of course no contraceptive is 100%, but some are pretty close in the 90%s.
As for links to cancer... the pill (and I'm assuming the patch and nuva ring since they work in the same way as the pill) actually protect against cancer of the ovaries and lining of the uterus. It also does not increase the risk of breast cancer. -
-
Re: Sex Education
Fri, February 6, 2004 - 11:35 AMOn a side note, contraceptives, just as with any drug, come with literature on the risks. It's up to the consumer/patient to read and make an informed decision on what is best for them. Tylenol has adverse side affects, but I never about groups lobbying to have that banned...
-
-
-
Re: Sex Education
Thu, February 5, 2004 - 7:38 AMI am more for the using of protection in schools, Because kids,
and teens will always be teens. The thing I don't understand
is in schools they talk against masterbation. 95 percent of the
population masterbates and it doesn't cause pregency or STD's.
But still for some reason it is wrong in the eyes of many people.
What are your views?
-
Unsu...
Re: Sex Education
Fri, February 6, 2004 - 1:59 PMI think it's important to understand why "abstinence only" legislation is on the table. It is not because studies show that it is an effective way to protect young people from STDs and pregnancy - in fact, studies show that abstinence-only education results in MORE unprotected sex than actual sex education - or no sex education at all.
Bush knows this isn't going to work. He is behind this for political reasons. It helps him shore up the Christian right by kowtowing to their agenda. It is incredibly duplicitous; certainly his economic policy - tax cuts for corporations and the rich - does little to improve the lot of the mostly lower and middle class voters in the "bible belt".
The Republicans have for a long time aligned themselves with the religious right. It's very effective for them. The priests mesmerize the people while the politicians pick their pockets. The Republicans know that if you already believe that a virgin gave birth to the son of God, who was killed only to be resurrected three days later, then you'll easily believe that we can cut taxes and increase spending on education. -
-
Re: Sex Education
Fri, February 6, 2004 - 2:22 PMI whole heartedly agree with you.
-
Re: Sex Education
Sat, February 7, 2004 - 5:16 PMwow, interesting point of view.
I'm thinking it will cut back on std's and teen pregnancy, as long as the abstinance message is administered properly. Std's are scary-some don't have cures, and many folks, especially women, can't tell they have them. Many times the affects of stds don't show up for months and even years. A very high percentage of the population who are sexually active have std's-which can be passed on to unborn children, btw.
Condoms are only %67 effective against pregnancy. Many diseases, viruses and what have you are smaller in circumference to a sperm, which at times can leak through a latex condom. If a sperm can get through occassionally, it stands to reason that anything else can, too. And, there are std's which are transmitted skin to skin-just because the penal area is covered, doesn't guarantee it offers protection if the disease is transferable from the thigh area, the torso or even the genitilia area-condoms only cover partially. Some stds and other diseases can be transferred through sweat in the delicate genital areas of the body.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Sex Education
Sat, February 7, 2004 - 5:54 PMAnd, don't you think that would be helpful information for teenagers to know? With abstinence-only education, they wouldn't be taught any of that. Because, abstinence-only education isn't education. -
-
Re: Sex Education
Sat, February 7, 2004 - 6:06 PMyes, it would be helpful information, and should be standard in schools, beginning with Jr. High on up, and every year a portion of a science or health-related class should touch on the issue in depth.
It is in the best interest of these children to learn as early as possible, BEFORE they engage in sexual activity, so they will not be harmed.
-
-
Re: Sex Education
Sat, February 7, 2004 - 6:57 PMAccording to the CDC "3% of couples using condoms consistently and correctly (considered "perfect use") are estimated to experience an unintended pregnancy."
Also, according to the CDC "Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens."
You are right about condoms not completely protecting against infections such as HPV. Female condoms do offer more protection than male condoms because they cover a larger area. This is something that is talked about in great detail to the classes I give safer sex presentations to.
Because condoms are not 100% effective does not mean that they have no value in prevention, noting, for example, that most vaccines are not 100% effective either.
After all the years that abstinence education has been going on, there has still been the same percentage of teens having sex as those who have had comprehensive sex ed, as I stated in the original post. Once again, the only difference is that teens who go through abstinence only ed have higher rates of STIs and unintended pregnancy.
I'm curious where you got the number 67% from and your other info, as it is incorrect. -
-
Re: Sex Education
Mon, February 9, 2004 - 6:18 AMGot the info off a pamphlet entitled: Is sex safe? by Grapevine publications. Oops, I misquoted the #-according to this pamphlet, there is a 17% failure rate, not 67% as originally stated. (where I got 67, have no clue-trying to juggle answering posts and homework-probably got something mixed up!)
Darn, there's no way to edit my other post. grr. -
-
Re: Sex Education
Wed, February 25, 2004 - 12:43 PMFound this on Yahoo front page, thought it fit with the subject matter of this post.
Oral Sex Shown to Be Linked to Mouth Cancer
41 minutes ago Add Health - Reuters to My Yahoo!
LONDON (Reuters) - Although the risk is small and it is more likely to result from heavy drinking and smoking, scientists have uncovered evidence that oral sex can cause mouth cancer.
In Yahoo! Health
Chronic Heartburn
Need Relief?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More from Yahoo! Health:
• Check Your Symptoms
• How Is It Diagnosed?
• Available Treatments
Researchers had suspected that a sexually transmitted infection that is linked to cervical cancer could also be associated with tumors in the mouth.
Now a study by researchers working for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France seems to have confirmed it.
"Oral sex can lead to oral tumors," New Scientist magazine said Wednesday, referring to the latest research.
The scientists studied more than 1,600 patients from Europe, Canada, Australia, Cuba and the Sudan with oral cancer and more than 1,700 healthy people.
They found that patients with oral cancer containing a strain of the human papilloma virus (HPV) known as HPV16 were three times more likely to report having had oral sex than those without the virus strain.
"The researchers think both cunnilingus and fellatio can infect people's mouths," the magazine added.
Raphael Viscidi, a virologist who worked on the research, believes the findings substantiate the link between HPV and oral cancer.
"This is a major study in terms of size," he said. "I think this will convince people."
High consumptions of alcohol and cigarettes are estimated to cause 75-90 percent of all cases of oral cancer. The combination of tobacco smoke and alcohol are thought to produce high levels of cancer causing agents.
Scientists are currently working on vaccines to prevent cervical cancer, which is more common, but they might also be effective against oral cancer.
"It is thought the vaccines would prevent oral infections as well," the magazine added.
-
-
Re: Sex Education
Wed, February 25, 2004 - 2:54 PMWouldn't surprise me. When I give presentations on safer sex, it is always made clear that oral sex is NOT necessarily a safe practice. Just about any infection you can get on your genitals, is also transferable to the mouth and throat. -
-
Re: Sex Education
Wed, February 25, 2004 - 4:44 PMboth the benefits of abstinence, plus info on contraceptives, etc.
The best way is to be real with them listen to their thoughts and ideas, i agree with someone stating teens will be teens.
I have most successful when the group felt safe enough to talk to a responsible adult , pryor, during and after sexual contact. I fell its about lowering the percentages vs have a 100% ab goal.
-
-
-
-
-
-
