Sex ed may delay teen sex?

I think parents are the biggest influence in that they instill self esteem and good manners in their children. I think sex education in schools can be great for telling kids all that stuff they really don't want to hear from their parents.

Too much education has never been a cause of misbehavior, it's usually too little thats the culprit.

Reply

What they didn't mention is that when they *do* have sex for the first time (and they do BEFORE marriage), they are more likely to do it unprotected. I believe that abstinence programs are crap, because they can't teach it in a way that also says "well, if you're going to do it, use a condom". You can scream abstinence to teenagers all you want, but I believe they still will have sex. Also, they have non-vaginal sex and think it doesn't count as "sex".

Reply

I don't heart abstinence-based sex ed. My 13yo just had it a few montsh ago. They were all given pledge cards they had to sign that said "I pledge to abstain from sex until marriage". My son said a lot of students signed theirs. I asked if they were really going to do that, and he replied, "gee Mom, who's gonna check on them?" I think this says it all... He didn't sign his.
Our kids also go through a DARE program where they all had to promise they would never smoke or drink alcohol as long as they live... that was in 5th grade. I remember one little kid promised that he would never drink beer. I think we should take the kids' pledges with a grain of salt.

Reply

Teach a 12-year-old that something is "right" and that 12-year-old will parrot it right back at you, whether the 12-year-old believes it or not. They know they have no power to hold different opinions from the adults around them, and they haven't quite gotten to the point of being contrary for the point of being contrary.

As you said, it's what these 12-year-olds do when they're 17-year-olds that determines the real results of the program. And here's my experience, having been in and out of two different school systems during my schooling years (due to parental money issues):

One system taught abstinence-only. One system taught abstinence+. In the first school system, about 20% of the girls ended up pregnant (and known to be pregnant) by the end of high school. In the second, there were 4 known pregnanies out of 506 girls (0.7%).

There are other differences to take into consideration between the two: the system that taught abstinence-only was public, and in a lower and middle middle class area. The system that taught abstinence+ was Catholic, and did draw more upper class students (it covered vaguely the same area as the public system). I'd say that the sexual activity level in the Catholic system was a bit lower: maybe 40% of the students in that system were sexually active by the end of high school, versus about 60% in the public system. But the primary difference: the Catholic school kids I knew were using birth control. The public school kids were not, and knew little about it.

I don't disagree with making abstinence a focus of a program: logically, IT IS the most effective way of preventing STD transmission and pregnancy. But to presume that in this world, where you've at least got to get through college to have a decent shot at making it into the middle class as an adult, believing that teenagers aren't going to grow into late teenagers (18/19) and twenty-somethings who will have sex outside of marriage is naive. And high school is our last, best chance to catch 'em and teach 'em. Colleges aren't going to take that responsibility, NOR should they. It's too late. The Catholic school figured out a system that worked for it, despite the church's opposition: abstinence-only was taught as part of religious education, while the whole reproductive/sexual disease process AND how to control those processes were taught in the required biology class. Most teenagers are smart enough to understand why that division was made, to understand what the Church's position is versus the practical reasons why they're being taught about reproductive and disease control, AND then to make up their own minds based on the strength of their beliefs and the reality of their lives. I know people who were sexually active in high school, and I know people who waited until marriage. Each of them made the choice that was right for them and had the full information to do so.

Reply

Personally, the more information I had, the longer I waited to have sex. My school district started comprehensive sex-ed in 6th grade and continued in the health classes until 10th grade. There were some elective classes in the upper grades (like marriage and family relations) that discussed it further. Those classes kept me a virgin far longer than if I hadn't had them. I was terrified of getting pregnant, I was terrified of catching an STD, and I knew I wasn't ready for sex. We were also taught that oral sex isn't any safer as far as STDs go than intercourse, something abstinence-only programs don't discuss. The rates of oral sex among those kids who sign those pledges is astronomical. They don't think it's "sex", so it's okay to do it.

If our school district doesn't offer comprehensive sex-ed (and I think it does), I will take my kids to Planned Parenthood so they can get that education. I'll also keep talking to them about our values and how to be safe.

Reply

Well as a parent... I took it into my own hands with my 9 year old. Because lets face it.. in 6th grade... kids were having sex.

She has TONS of information. And with the new HPV shot I talked to my ob/gyn who said that around 11 is when I should bring her in for it.. to him not a pediatrician. They palpate the ovaries and stuff and talk about things that she can hear from a doctor and not just from mom. (Meaning: no internal exam.. but just a wise start.. dont make your gals afrais of the gyn early...)

I would never trust the schools that are constantly arguing over what is right and what isnt to teach my daughter the actual facts.

She was planted firmly in front of Dateline to Catch A Predator.

Arm them with info.. and as someone else said.. self esteem.. and ways to say no..

Reply

I think hp has an excellent point about the "abstinence+" program. I firmly believe that we should be telling our kids *not* to have sex too early - they have their entire lives ahead of them for that. I also believe that education is the best weapon, and that giving a mixed message, like handing out condoms in school, is defeating the purpose.

Reply

Wait.. now is the purpose to feel like we arent sending mixed messages... or is the purpose to make sure that our kids are as safe as possible?

I think that "us" feeling like we told them the "right" thing is a lame excuse for not making protection available.

So what does that prove...?

Reply