Does sex ed encourage sex?

[ShyGuyInChicago]

In Juneau County, Wisconsin, A District Attorney, Scott Southworth is warning teachers against teaching the new comprehensive sex ed curriculum recently mandated by law. His reasoning is that in Wisconsin it is illegal for minors to have sex and teaching them sex ed will encourage teens to have sex and therefore, teachers who teach sex ed could be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He also says that the curriculum could encourage statutory rape because in Wisconsin the age of consent is 18.

What is your take on Southworth's claims? Is he right?

I think that regardless of whether he is right (and to a small extent he is with respect to sex ed encouraging sex) the main issue is that teens will have sex with or without encouragement; therefore, sex ed needs to comprehensive so that teens know how to be safe.

[Kaya]

I think sex ed does encourage sex, but they shouldn't quit the program. It's like...telling a little kid that they can have a piece of candy, but they have to wait for it. That just makes the kid say "ooh I want it now"

[Ender]

I feel sex ed just encourages students to use protection if they have sex, and what can happen if they dont. Not necessarily encouraging sex.

[Sugaree]

I think sex ed does encourage sex, but they shouldn't quit the program. It's like...telling a little kid that they can have a piece of candy, but they have to wait for it. That just makes the kid say "ooh I want it now"

Well, this is a more simple way to put it, but you are right. Regardless, making something illegal only encourages the desire to want it more. Case in point, sex ed.

My simple solution: completely reform all sex education programs across the country. Make a new program, teaching kids the ins and outs (no pun intended) of sex and be straightforward about the actual decision. Just tell them that, yes, you're going to have sex; yes, you run the risk of contracting an STD/STI without protection; yes, you run the risk of getting pregnant etc., etc..

The teachers in Wisconsin, however, are only doing their jobs. Unless the teacher or teachers in question were telling a kid about sex and giving them encouragement outside of a classroom/educational situation, then charges can be filed and pressed.

[Kaya]

Kids are having sex younger and younger. I think they should teach about the reproductive system briefly at the end of elementary school. Middle school should focus on STDs, Pregnancy, protection, risks, etc. and high school should teach the rest of sex ed.
Just starting the curriculum a little earlier could help many youngins <--lol

[Amnesiac]

The birth rate among teens in California has reached a record low, according to a new state report, and experts attribute the reduction to sex education, the poor economy and possibly even reality-television programs that show the strain on young parents.

The teen birth rate decreased to about 32 births per 1,000 female teens age 15 to 19, according to a report released Tuesday by the California Department of Public Health. The figures are based on data for 2009, the most recent year available.

(...)

The birth rates reflect the increased use of contraception among teens, who are also delaying the first time they have sex, said Dr. Jonathan E. Fielding, Los Angeles County’s director of public health.

Meanwhile,

Despite the overall good news for the country, teenage birth rates showed wide disparities from region to region, and among ethnic groups, differences that experts say reflect varied acceptance of birth control and education programs and the difficulty of reaching urban Hispanic and African-American teenagers with programs.

Connecticut, which the CDC says recorded 21 births per 1,000 teenage girls in 2009, ranked the fourth lowest in the country. New Hampshire, with a teen birth rate of 16.4 per 1,000, was ranked lowest in the country, followed by Vermont with 17.4, and Massachusetts with 19.6.

Rhode Island, Maine, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York all had teen birth rates below 30 per 1,000, making the Northeast a standout among all regions of the country. The South and the West — with states like Mississippi, Texas and Oklahoma recording teenage birth rates of more than 60 per 1,000 — continue to experience the highest teen birth rates.

Both national and state experts on reducing teen birth rates say its no mystery that Northeastern states perform dramatically better than the rest of the country.

(...)

Connecticut high schools, which have some of the strongest sex education programs in the country and often provide in-school health programs that make contraceptives available, have an edge over states where social and religious resistance to sex education is high. Assuring confidentiality in testing for pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases also encourages higher participation than in states where state laws require parental consent, Carrillo said.

Politically charged "abstinence-only" sex education programs in more conservative states have retarded progress in lowering teen birth rates there, said Bill Albert, the chief program officer for The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy in Washington, D.C.

Yes, sex ed education makes sex seem 'acceptable,' but this is a pointless argument on behalf of the social conservatives. Teens will have sex. That's not debatable, and no amount of delusion will change that fact. The age of consent is pretty much unenforceable, since trying to find teens having sex would infringe on pretty much every federal privacy law and constitutional law. Only someone who's been blinded by religion and "family values" bullshit would be against sex education that encourages use of contraceptives. Yes, teens should know it's illegal too, but the difference such a fact makes is minimal, if prevalent at all.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Meanwhile,



The age of consent is pretty much unenforceable, since trying to find teens having sex would infringe on pretty much every federal privacy law and constitutional law.

Just a slight correction age of consent is only in practical terms unenforceable when it comes to teens having sex with one another. It is important to not ignore the other part of age of consent laws...which involves making it illegal for adults to have sex with minors. That is easier to enforce.

[Sugaree]

Only someone who's been blinded by religion and "family values" bullshit would be against sex education that encourages use of contraceptives.

You see, this is where things get mucked up whenever a discussion relating to sex education. I know many nonreligious persons who are against encouragement of contraceptives. It's not necessarily religion that is blatantly against the use of contraceptives. So, really, you're proving yourself of being no better than those who are close minded when it comes to the encouragement of contraceptives.

Just a slight correction age of consent is only in practical terms unenforceable when it comes to teens having sex with one another. It is important to not ignore the other part of age of consent laws...which involves making it illegal for adults to have sex with minors. That is easier to enforce.

Though a small correct to the age of consent is unenforceable when teens have sex, it is also unenforceable when it comes to adults having sex with minors. In reality, not many laws are enforceable, no matter how hard you might try. If you can present proof - and I mean solid proof - that it is easier to enforce an adult not to have sex with a minor than for two minors to have sex, I'll change my stance.

[Amnesiac]

Just a slight correction age of consent is only in practical terms unenforceable when it comes to teens having sex with one another. It is important to not ignore the other part of age of consent laws...which involves making it illegal for adults to have sex with minors. That is easier to enforce.

Easier it may be, but still extremely difficult if nobody admits to anything. The problem with prosecution under age of consent laws is that there's usually no evidence beyond accusations from the victim.

You see, this is where things get mucked up whenever a discussion relating to sex education. I know many nonreligious persons who are against encouragement of contraceptives. It's not necessarily religion that is blatantly against the use of contraceptives. So, really, you're proving yourself of being no better than those who are close minded when it comes to the encouragement of contraceptives.

True, it's not only religion, but it seems the driving force behind abstinence-only programs is religion. It's entirely possible to have a secular abstinence program, but it just seems that most abstinence programs (including the ones I've been subject to) are, if anything, subtly religious – mostly in how they tell us to "wait until marriage" to have sex rather than waiting until we're of legal age.

[TravM]

In the years I had sex ed, I didn't find it to be promoting sex at all. One of it's targets is to promote safe sex, so naturally it's probably going to get a little bit of unwarranted backlash. Promoting safe sex is definitely one of the core focuses so I don't think excluding it from schools should be an option, and like it's been said, sex is a topic contemplated by most people of our age range. I've seen a lot of people who do well with the knowledge and who aren't immature about it. Of course there were laughs through out the classroom, but I've seen guys and girl take it seriously so there's definitely a positive side to it. Sex ed isn't really exposing us to taboo things. It's just enlightening us for the protection of when it does happen.

[sdude]

It should be plainly obvious from those of us on this site, what a NEED there is for REAL sex ed in schools, so many inacurate beliefs and legends that only perpetuate poor choices, and therefore pregnancies and spreading of disease. Puberty begins our journey to sex, not education.

[Sugaree]

True, it's not only religion, but it seems the driving force behind abstinence-only programs is religion. It's entirely possible to have a secular abstinence program, but it just seems that most abstinence programs (including the ones I've been subject to) are, if anything, subtly religious – mostly in how they tell us to "wait until marriage" to have sex rather than waiting until we're of legal age.

Though I think abstinence-only programs are a waste of fundings, I can agree that most of them have religion as a motive. If someone wants to wait until marriage to have sex, more power to them if you ask me. Still, I've been through a few secular abstinence-only sex ed programs, and they still say pretty much the same thing either way (with the exception of encouraging purity rings).

It should be plainly obvious from those of us on this site, what a NEED there is for REAL sex ed in schools, so many inacurate beliefs and legends that only perpetuate poor choices, and therefore pregnancies and spreading of disease. Puberty begins our journey to sex, not education.

A good idea. It's a start, but you never know what type of educators will be hired. You could get a wide range of people from all sorts of opinions around the spectrum. So, really, this wouldn't be effective in practice.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

You see, this is where things get mucked up whenever a discussion relating to sex education. I know many nonreligious persons who are against encouragement of contraceptives. It's not necessarily religion that is blatantly against the use of contraceptives. So, really, you're proving yourself of being no better than those who are close minded when it comes to the encouragement of contraceptives.



Though a small correct to the age of consent is unenforceable when teens have sex, it is also unenforceable when it comes to adults having sex with minors. In reality, not many laws are enforceable, no matter how hard you might try. If you can present proof - and I mean solid proof - that it is easier to enforce an adult not to have sex with a minor than for two minors to have sex, I'll change my stance.

What kind of proof do you want? Do you want actual cases of statutory rape?

Why do you think that so many laws are unenforceable?

[Sugaree]

Why do you think that so many laws are unenforceable?

Why do you think so many laws are enforceable? With the exceptions of the most basic laws, hardly any laws are fully enforceable. However, that's not the topic of this debate.

[Amnesiac]

Though I think abstinence-only programs are a waste of fundings, I can agree that most of them have religion as a motive. If someone wants to wait until marriage to have sex, more power to them if you ask me. Still, I've been through a few secular abstinence-only sex ed programs, and they still say pretty much the same thing either way (with the exception of encouraging purity rings)..

Yeah, there's not really a difference. However, if you watch an abstinence program carefully, you'll be able to notice the subtle religious idealism they insert into the presentation.

But yes, as I've shown in my first post in this thread (and (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/jan/22/attack-mode/) I (http://www.sandiego.com/news/teen-pregnancies-still-a-san-diego-problem) can (http://www.theday.com/article/20110206/OP01/302069953) continue (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/) to (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/state-issues/125059-cdc-finds-stark-regional-disparities-in-teen-pregnancy-rates?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4cc07666d0e4fe67,0) show (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503957.html)), abstinence-only sex education programs continuously fail to make a difference and are counter-progressive.

[Daniel_]

Kids are kids. Kids love candy. Kids will get candy.

Horny teenagers are horny teenagers. Horny teenagers love sex. Horny teenagers will have sex.

At least with sex ed, they will be educated enough to use protection, and hopefully not fuck up their life.

[Sugaree]

Kids are kids. Kids love candy. Kids will get candy.

Horny teenagers are horny teenagers. Horny teenagers love sex. Horny teenagers will have sex.

At least with sex ed, they will be educated enough to use protection, and hopefully not fuck up their life.

Just because they're educated to use protection doesn't mean they'll actually use protection. What makes you think this?

[Daniel_]

Just because they're educated to use protection doesn't mean they'll actually use protection. What makes you think this?

Some will listen, definitely not all, but some, and if teaching sex ed classes will convince that certain percentage of 'some' to use protection, then thats a few more lives saved.

Figuratively, of course.

[Mzor203]

Just because they're educated to use protection doesn't mean they'll actually use protection. What makes you think this?

This is basically the equivalent of saying "Well, even if we teach people driving safety, some won't actually be safe, so let's not teach them safety!"

[Skeptical Bear]

All kids will find out about sex at one point. Yea it does encourage it a bit but even if the class wasn't taken, they'd still probably do it anyway. Sex Ed in my perspective is to show them the risks of sex and protection. So there isn't a point in stopping it. Only some brainwashed fuck would think Sex Ed mainly encourages sex..

[Sugaree]

This is basically the equivalent of saying "Well, even if we teach people driving safety, some won't actually be safe, so let's not teach them safety!"

Basically, yes. However, I'm not condoning the removal of sex ed programs. What Daniel posted basically implied that if you teach them to use protection, they'll use it based off the education.

[Daniel_]

Basically, yes. However, I'm not condoning the removal of sex ed programs. What Daniel posted basically implied that if you teach them to use protection, they'll use it based off the education.

And most will, yes.

Or the smart ones will, I should say, which I hope is the majority.