Battle over Sex-ed books in Texas

[brunswickite]

Text

Education is considering and will likely approve four books, all of which extol the virtues of abstinence. Three make no mention of contraceptives at all while one makes passing reference to condoms.

For example, one textbook under review advises that a good way a teen-ager can prevent a sexually transmitted disease is to get plenty of rest so he or she can have a clear head about sex and choose abstinence.

:roll:

 

[nick1985]

hahaha....thats great. :thumbsdown:

 

[dabuddha]

The lesson for Texas teens is that the only safe sex is no sex, and that may be a lesson that heads nationwide.

That message is correct so I don't see a problem with it. Regardless, it's the parent's responsibility to teach their children about sex.

 

[brunswickite]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

The lesson for Texas teens is that the only safe sex is no sex, and that may be a lesson that heads nationwide.

That message is correct so I don't see a problem with it.

Do you have a problem with the books not mentioning any contraceptives?

 

[skace]

TEXAS = DUMB

 

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

The lesson for Texas teens is that the only safe sex is no sex, and that may be a lesson that heads nationwide.

That message is correct so I don't see a problem with it. Regardless, it's the parent's responsibility to teach their children about sex.

the problem would be that if they aren't taught anything else, how are they going to know how not to get an std if they do have sex. and remember, this is texas, there ain't a whole lot to do in some parts.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

The lesson for Texas teens is that the only safe sex is no sex, and that may be a lesson that heads nationwide.

That message is correct so I don't see a problem with it. Regardless, it's the parent's responsibility to teach their children about sex.

Yea that seems to be working... :roll:

Parents on averaghe today want the schools, goverment, etc... to do everything for them. If billy fails math he got a bad teacher/school, sara got arrested cops must be picking on her, etc...

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: brunswickite

Originally posted by: dabuddha

The lesson for Texas teens is that the only safe sex is no sex, and that may be a lesson that heads nationwide.

That message is correct so I don't see a problem with it.

Do you have a problem with the books not mentioning any contraceptives?

Considering they shouldn't be doing it in the first place, I don't have a problem with that. The book is providing information on the safest way to have sex (which is to not have it). These 13 year old kids need to be concentrating on school, not screwing each other's brains out.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
Considering they shouldn't be doing it in the first place, I don't have a problem with that. The book is providing information on the safest way to have sex (which is to not have it). These 13 year old kids need to be concentrating on school, not screwing each other's brains out.

Actually, 'not having sex' cannot possibly be the safest way to have sex because it is the opposite. That is like saying the safest way to swim is not to swim. Or the safest way to drive a car is not to drive a car. The statements DO NOT MAKE SENSE and do not train or help people in any way. If drivers ed told you not to drive a car they would be USELESS.

Think about it for a few seconds.

 

[brunswickite]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: brunswickite

Originally posted by: dabuddha

The lesson for Texas teens is that the only safe sex is no sex, and that may be a lesson that heads nationwide.

That message is correct so I don't see a problem with it.

Do you have a problem with the books not mentioning any contraceptives?

Considering they shouldn't be doing it in the first place, I don't have a problem with that. The book is providing information on the safest way to have sex (which is to not have it). These 13 year old kids need to be concentrating on school, not screwing each other's brains out.

yea because, teaching kids not to have sex, will stop them from having sex... The book should be at a higher level and understand that some kids will have sex no matter what tehy are taught.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: dabuddha
Considering they shouldn't be doing it in the first place, I don't have a problem with that. The book is providing information on the safest way to have sex (which is to not have it). These 13 year old kids need to be concentrating on school, not screwing each other's brains out.

Actually, 'not having sex' cannot possibly be the safest way to have sex because it is the opposite. That is like saying the safest way to swim is not to swim. Or the safest way to drive a car is not to drive a car. The statements DO NOT MAKE SENSE and do not train or help people in any way. If drivers ed told you not to drive a car they would be USELESS.

Think about it for a few seconds.

It does make sense. It's basically saying there is no such thing as 100% safe sex. Hence the saying The safest sex is no sex. No one every said anything about swimming.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: brunswickite

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: brunswickite

Originally posted by: dabuddha

The lesson for Texas teens is that the only safe sex is no sex, and that may be a lesson that heads nationwide.

That message is correct so I don't see a problem with it.

Do you have a problem with the books not mentioning any contraceptives?

Considering they shouldn't be doing it in the first place, I don't have a problem with that. The book is providing information on the safest way to have sex (which is to not have it). These 13 year old kids need to be concentrating on school, not screwing each other's brains out.

yea because, teaching kids not to have sex, will stop them from having sex... The book should be at a higher level and understand that some kids will have sex no matter what tehy are taught.

So if the kids are going to ignore the book anyways, what good would it do to even publish it then? Bottom line, the right thing for the kids is not to have sex. Sometimes you have to do the right thing even if it is not practical.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: dabuddha
Considering they shouldn't be doing it in the first place, I don't have a problem with that. The book is providing information on the safest way to have sex (which is to not have it). These 13 year old kids need to be concentrating on school, not screwing each other's brains out.

Actually, 'not having sex' cannot possibly be the safest way to have sex because it is the opposite. That is like saying the safest way to swim is not to swim. Or the safest way to drive a car is not to drive a car. The statements DO NOT MAKE SENSE and do not train or help people in any way. If drivers ed told you not to drive a car they would be USELESS.

Think about it for a few seconds.

It does make sense. It's basically saying there is no such thing as 100% safe sex. Hence the saying The safest sex is no sex. No one every said anything about swimming.

NOTHING is 100% safe. Everything from taking a shower to eating food from the grocery store to putting your pants on has the potential to kill you. (slip in the shower, eat mad cow beef, trip on your pants) So that still doesn't make any sense.

 

[FrogDog]

You can tell kids not to have sex all you want. You can scream it at them every day, and they're still going to do it. It's a natural thing for humans to want to have sex. That's why teaching "don't have sex" instead of "make sure you use a condom every time" is stupid. Very, very stupid.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
It does make sense. It's basically saying there is no such thing as 100% safe sex. Hence the saying The safest sex is no sex. No one every said anything about swimming.

And there is no such thing as safe swimming or safe driving or safe walking. YOU ARE NEVER 100% SAFE IN LIFE. Every thing you do presents a risk. That is why you show people how to be AS SAFE AS THEY CAN WHILE INVOLVED IN XYZ ACTIVITY. Since this is "SEX ED" the activity is sex and the teaching is how to be as safe as you can while in that activity. I thought this was basic logic.

I will add that I do not have a problem with teachers suggesting that children wait until a specific time (marriage / whatever). But at the same time they should not assume 100% of their class is simply not going to have sex forever until married. That is retarded.

Edit: Nevermind pingspike beat me to the punch 🙂. Thanks Ping.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
So if the kids are going to ignore the book anyways, what good would it do to even publish it then? Bottom line, the right thing for the kids is not to have sex. Sometimes you have to do the right thing even if it is not practical.

The 'right thing' is a moral/ethical opinion. There's no reason to shield them from information they will almost certainly encounter anyway, especially when it opens all their options. Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you about 13 year olds having sex being a sad, sad state of affairs...but going 'sex is bad, don't have it' and offering no other information about the act is a sure fire way to churn out more teenage pregnancies which in turn up welfare costs, healthcare costs, etc.

Just because kids 'shouldn't do it' isn't going to stop them. Kids by nature are curious and make piss poor decisions. If all they've ever heard about sex is that its 'bad and you shouldn't do it' then you're going to accomplish nothing. Everything I ever did that was 'bad' when I was a kid I knew was 'bad' before I did it. I spray painted some graffeti, drove to fast, smoked a little weed, got drunk off my ass...I never had any delusions about those being 'great ideas'.

My point is, being right isn't as important as getting results. You can ride your high horse all day long while society crumbles around you or you can walk in the mud and try to make some progress.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: brunswickite

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: brunswickite

Originally posted by: dabuddha

The lesson for Texas teens is that the only safe sex is no sex, and that may be a lesson that heads nationwide.

That message is correct so I don't see a problem with it.

Do you have a problem with the books not mentioning any contraceptives?

Considering they shouldn't be doing it in the first place, I don't have a problem with that. The book is providing information on the safest way to have sex (which is to not have it). These 13 year old kids need to be concentrating on school, not screwing each other's brains out.

yea because, teaching kids not to have sex, will stop them from having sex... The book should be at a higher level and understand that some kids will have sex no matter what tehy are taught.

So if the kids are going to ignore the book anyways, what good would it do to even publish it then? Bottom line, the right thing for the kids is not to have sex. Sometimes you have to do the right thing even if it is not practical.

you are living in a fairy tale world buddy. teenagers can and will have sex...esp in a place like texas where there's not much to do/plenty of hot girls around/lots of drinking. the people in that state needs to get a grip on reality and realize that no matter how much they preach abstinence, human nature and hormones will get the best of teenagers. they need to pull their heads out of the hole and teach the kids the proper way to have sex...cuz it will happen no matter what.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: dabuddha
Considering they shouldn't be doing it in the first place, I don't have a problem with that. The book is providing information on the safest way to have sex (which is to not have it). These 13 year old kids need to be concentrating on school, not screwing each other's brains out.

Actually, 'not having sex' cannot possibly be the safest way to have sex because it is the opposite. That is like saying the safest way to swim is not to swim. Or the safest way to drive a car is not to drive a car. The statements DO NOT MAKE SENSE and do not train or help people in any way. If drivers ed told you not to drive a car they would be USELESS.

Think about it for a few seconds.

It does make sense. It's basically saying there is no such thing as 100% safe sex. Hence the saying The safest sex is no sex. No one every said anything about swimming.

You are immune to logic... amazing.

It's ridiculous to teach soully abstinence. If anything, abstinence should get the passing mention in the text books, which should focus on realistic forms of contraception and disease prevention.

BTW, I really liked the swimming\driving analogy, that was good work. :thumbsup:

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: dabuddha
So if the kids are going to ignore the book anyways, what good would it do to even publish it then? Bottom line, the right thing for the kids is not to have sex. Sometimes you have to do the right thing even if it is not practical.

The 'right thing' is a moral/ethical opinion. There's no reason to shield them from information they will almost certainly encounter anyway, especially when it opens all their options. Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you about 13 year olds having sex being a sad, sad state of affairs...but going 'sex is bad, don't have it' and offering no other information about the act is a sure fire way to churn out more teenage pregnancies which in turn up welfare costs, healthcare costs, etc.

Just because kids 'shouldn't do it' isn't going to stop them. Kids by nature are curious and make piss poor decisions. If all they've ever heard about sex is that its 'bad and you shouldn't do it' then you're going to accomplish nothing. Everything I ever did that was 'bad' when I was a kid I knew was 'bad' before I did it. I spray painted some graffeti, drove to fast, smoked a little weed, got drunk off my ass...I never had any delusions about those being 'great ideas'.

My point is, being right isn't as important as getting results. You can ride your high horse all day long while society crumbles around you or you can walk in the mud and try to make some progress.

You're right. It is a moral opinion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "being on a high horse." People have to draw the line somewhere. The only way to fix our society is to start from the beginning. I never did say using condoms or whatnot is bad. I'm not to sure where people got that idea. I just agree with the message, the safest sex is no sex. It is a true statement and can not be refuted.

 

[MikeMike]

there is to a safe way, but its not exactly sex, yanky your wanky is normally safe.

but for cryin out loud, teach the kids the safe ways, not abstinence.

MIKE

 

[Torghn]

Originally posted by: FrogDog
You can tell kids not to have sex all you want. You can scream it at them every day, and they're still going to do it. It's a natural thing for humans to want to have sex. That's why teaching "don't have sex" instead of "make sure you use a condom every time" is stupid. Very, very stupid.

This is just so not true. Less than half of the kids who graduate from the high school I went to have before graduation. And guess what, they teach "don't have sex" and leave it at that. I'm sure this isn't anywhere near the national norm, but it's pretty consistent thought the state.

If a parent feels it's necessary to teach their kids about contraceptives then more power too them. Parent involvement is a good thing.

Edit: Forgot to mention that in the entire 4 years I went to high school there was only one student who got pregnant, and this is in a school of nearly 4000. So obviously the sex education policy isn't working towards the detriment of thoes who wouldn't listen to the "simply don't have sex" policy.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
You're right. It is a moral opinion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "being on a high horse." People have to draw the line somewhere. The only way to fix our society is to start from the beginning. I never did say using condoms or whatnot is bad. I'm not to sure where people got that idea. I just agree with the message, the safest sex is no sex. It is a true statement and can not be refuted.

Well of course its true. And I certainly think more than lip service should be paid to the benefits of abstience. But at the same time to just gloss over the other options and deny reality isn't a prudent course of action. That was the point I was getting at. All things need to be covered for an incomplete education on the topic is no education at all.

Oh and the high horse thing wasn't meant to be personally offensive to your or anything. It was just a metaphor.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Torghn

Originally posted by: FrogDog
You can tell kids not to have sex all you want. You can scream it at them every day, and they're still going to do it. It's a natural thing for humans to want to have sex. That's why teaching "don't have sex" instead of "make sure you use a condom every time" is stupid. Very, very stupid.

This is just so not true. Less than half of the kids who graduate from the high school I went to have before graduation. And guess what, they teach "don't have sex" and leave it at that. I'm sure this isn't anywhere near the national norm, but it's pretty consistent thought the state.

Uh....you live in Utah. Of course it's different. 😛

Here's the "official" word from CDC

It's also broken down by state.

....and while we're at it, here's the national condom use trend data for teens. Linky.

1991 = 46.2%
2003 = 63%

Pregnancy rates down from 6% in 1991 to 4.2% in 2003.

 

[DarkKnight]

:thumbsdown:

 

[quentinterintino]

Originally posted by: skace
TEXAS = DUMB

yeah, new hampshire must be the shiznit huh?