Fifth Graders Quizzed on Proper Condom Use

[Scott_Lafrance]

I’m 18, so maybe I can add on a bit to what I said before, because a lot of people on here who are opposed to teaching 10 year olds about sex ed are generally content with them learning the material when they’re teens (i.e. 13, 14, or even 15 years old). It hasn’t been long since I’ve been that age, so maybe I can shed some light on this.

Being in High School/Middle School is NOT the same environment you are a part of when you are in Elementary School. It’s as different as night and day. If a kid has his/her first sex-ed class at the age of 14, then it really isn’t going to be that effective. Why? Because all around them, their peers are having sex, doing drugs, and to them, they seem perfectly fine. In fact, they seem better than fine, because a lot of teens even look up to and wish they were the one having all that sex and having all that fun. Does this apply to every kid in High School? No, absoultely not. But there is a large pool of kids who do think this way and it would be silly of us to ignore that.

Elementary School is different. Teaching a kid about sex when they are 10 isn’t going to backfire on you, because the other kids in the school aren’t doing it, and if they were, they’d most likely get called “yucky”, or some would even think that they’ve contracted “cooties”. Because of this, educating the children while they are still young, and NOT in High/Middle School is going to be far more effective, simply because people around them aren’t doing the exact opposite of what the teacher had taught them. When I got taught sex-ed at 10 years old, my teacher told us to wait until marriage, not because it was morally right (that’s up to the individual to decide), but because if a pregnancy does happen, we’ll be a lot more prepared to deal with it. Heck, at age 10, I didn’t ever want to get married. Kissing a girl seemed like taboo, let alone sleeping with her. And I feel that that knowledge has served me well, because even though my High School was a lot like most other peoples High Schools (there were some people I knew who were having sex), and I did get taught a bit of sex-ed as well, the whole concept wasn’t alien to me, and because of what I learned in fifth grade, I was already well aware of the consequences of unsafe, pre-maritial sex, and I knew which people I needed to steer-clear of.

This post is exactly why I pulled my kids out of public school.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

But they still do not just teach the facts, they teach morality as well as soon as they say they are bad.

What about teaching children not to lie in schools – moral teaching, and surely not illegal.

And isn’t the law based on morality?

Point being, you cannot separate moral teachings from schools - and when they do we see 10 year olds discussing sex.

As I said before, schools are supposed to make kids into contributing members of society. If you think teaching kids to lie makes them more valuable to society, that’s fine, but I very much doubt you could find anyone who would seriously make that argument. Besides, it is illegal to lie in many contexts, such as to the police, while under oath, or on your tax returns.

 

[mtbender]

As I said before, schools are supposed to make kids into contributing members of society. If you think teaching kids to lie makes them more valuable to society, that’s fine, but I very much doubt you could find anyone who would seriously make that argument. Besides, it is illegal to lie in many contexts, such as to the police, while under oath, or on your tax returns.

You also said before:

If the school teaches something other than the facts, you have a right to complain.

And

You are saying that there is no moral application, however moral objections ought to come from a parent, not a public school teacher.

And

This is why some schools are allowed to have classes about the bible: so long as the material covered is factual and free from religious conclusions, neither a bible class nor a health class covering condoms represents governmental advocacy for a moral position.

And

Once again, the school is not where kids should be taught this sort of morality.

My comments were showing that schools have to teach more than just facts. There is a degree of morality that has to be addressed in order to make them valuable members of society. Not arguing that lying is ever justified, but it is a question of moral behavior. Anytime there is a right and wrong defined it becomes a question of morality. If they want to stick to the facts only than the lesson should be that it is illegal – but they wouldn’t be able to say breaking the law is wrong – since that is a moral judgment.

But that aside, I am having a hard time seeing how teaching a 10 year old about condoms is making them a valuable part of society. If that is the argument, than the best recourse would be to again reinforce abstinence – the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy, and focus on the causative factors such as self-esteem, substance abuse, exc.

But I would love to hear how leaning to use a condom is making a child more valuable in their adult years…

 

[Corki]

As I said before, schools are supposed to make kids into contributing members of society. If you think teaching kids to lie makes them more valuable to society, that’s fine, but I very much doubt you could find anyone who would seriously make that argument. Besides, it is illegal to lie in many contexts, such as to the police, while under oath, or on your tax returns.

Why is it wrong to teach children to lie but not wrong to teach them to be promiscuous? Both are detrimental fo their becoming contributing members of society.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Why is it wrong to teach children to lie but not wrong to teach them to be promiscuous? Both are detrimental fo their becoming contributing members of society.

But that aside, I am having a hard time seeing how teaching a 10 year old about condoms is making them a valuable part of society. If that is the argument, than the best recourse would be to again reinforce abstinence – the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy, and focus on the causative factors such as self-esteem, substance abuse, exc.

But I would love to hear how leaning to use a condom is making a child more valuable in their adult years…

Being promiscuous does not make them a burden on society, but getting STDs or pregnant while still a teenager does. Therefore the government can intervene to prevent teen pregnancy and STDs. What approach is best? That is a scientific question. Most studies find that strict abstinence-only programs don’t work as well as classes which cover condom use.

You may point me to: archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/2/152
But I will remind you of: guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2010/02/03/EvidenceCheck-Jemmott-Study.pdf

 

[JimG]

Wow. If it’s so important to teach 10 year olds to use condoms, why wait till 5th grade? Why not teach them the “facts” in 3rd grade, or 2nd, or 1st?

Oh, sorry, maybe we already do. I’d forgotten how depraved society had become and how determined we have become to make sure our children absorb all our vices.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Being promiscuous does not make them a burden on society, but getting STDs or pregnant while still a teenager does. Therefore the government can intervene to prevent teen pregnancy and STDs. What approach is best? That is a scientific question. Most studies find that strict abstinence-only programs don’t work as well as classes which cover condom use.

You may point me to: archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/2/152
But I will remind you of: guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2010/02/03/EvidenceCheck-Jemmott-Study.pdf

My 11 year old son doesn’t even consider the topic, because he is homeschooled and not exposed to this nonsense. Science? Please. Science today is owned and controlled by competing political and commercial interests. They are mercenaries who sell and skew their information to the highest bidder.

 

[mtbender]

But wouldn’t promiscuity increase the likelihood of the other conditions that “burden” society?

The study review sited clearly states:

The abstinence-only program was the only intervention in the study to significantly reduce sexual initiation relative to the control group.

It also states:

This program could be a valuable tool in helping similar groups of young adolescents delay sexual initiation until they are older and more ready.

What the Guttmacher review fails to mention is (regarding the same study):

Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.

I would also like to point out that the Guttmacher Institute is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood. The study in question was sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health and conducted by the University of Pennsylvania published by the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

By the numbers, it looks like abstinence education is not only effective; it also removes the promiscuity concerns that could only perpetuate the problem.

Sources:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html
archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/164/2/152
guttmacher.org/about/history.html

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

But wouldn’t promiscuity increase the likelihood of the other conditions that “burden” society?

The study review sited clearly states:

It also states:

What the Guttmacher review fails to mention is (regarding the same study):

I would also like to point out that the Guttmacher Institute is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood. The study in question was sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health and conducted by the University of Pennsylvania published by the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

By the numbers, it looks like abstinence education is not only effective; it also removes the promiscuity concerns that could only perpetuate the problem.

Sources:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html
archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/164/2/152
guttmacher.org/about/history.html

I see the whole thing alot more simply.

If you teach 5th graders how to shoplift without getting caught, and then tell them that they shouldn’t shoplift, what do you think they are going to do when they are at Wal-Mart and they see a toy that they want and mom says “No!”?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

My 11 year old son doesn’t even consider the topic, because he is homeschooled and not exposed to this nonsense. Science? Please. Science today is owned and controlled by competing political and commercial interests. They are mercenaries who sell and skew their information to the highest bidder.

As I said before, one of the big reasons sex ed is necessary is that too many parents fail to tell their kids what they need to know about sex. A homeschooled kid is going to have different educational needs because they instead have significantly greater parental supervision. In other words, your son is irrelevant unless you are proposing that parents should accompany their kids to public school. The reality is that in public school kids are exposed to a variety of influences without supervision, including other kids whose parents were irresponsible in what they taught about sex.

You can certainly question scientific results, but your objection is basically a conspiracy theory.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

As I said before, one of the big reasons sex ed is necessary is that too many parents fail to tell their kids what they need to know about sex. A homeschooled kid is going to have different educational needs because they instead have significantly greater parental supervision. In other words, your son is irrelevant unless you are proposing that parents should accompany their kids to public school. The reality is that in public school kids are exposed to a variety of influences without supervision, including other kids whose parents were irresponsible in what they taught about sex.

You can certainly question scientific results, but your objection is basically a conspiracy theory.

One that Dwight Eisenhower predicted 60 years ago.

 

[Gift_from_God]

My 11 year old son doesn’t even consider the topic, because he is homeschooled and not exposed to this nonsense.

You know Scott, your son is going to start taking an interest or have questions pertaining to sexuality by the time he is 12 or 13, regardless if he’s homeschooled. It’s part of puberty

Science? Please. Science today is owned and controlled by competing political and commercial interests. They are mercenaries who sell and skew their information to the highest bidder.

 

[mtbender]

You can certainly question scientific results, but your objection is basically a conspiracy theory.

Would that statement then validate the data from the University of Pennsylvania study cited below and those who question this data considered conspiracy theorists?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Would that statement then validate the data from the University of Pennsylvania study cited below and those who question this data considered conspiracy theorists?

Let me explain the difference between a conspiracy theory and a scientific point.

Conspiracy theory: “Corporations just buy whatever scientific results they want”

Scientific point: “We must take into account that the authors warn the small sample size may underestimate the effectiveness of the comparison groups”

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Would that statement then validate the data from the University of Pennsylvania study cited below and those who question this data considered conspiracy theorists?

Let me demonstrate the difference between a conspiracy theory and a scientific point.

Conspiracy theory: “Corporations just buy whatever scientific results they want”

Scientific point: “We must take into account that the authors warn the small sample size may underestimate the effectiveness of the comparison groups”

 

[mtbender]

You must take into account the authors motives and political affiliation as well – working under the umbrella of science does not equal fact.
Not much different from the example used as “Scientific Point.”

I am well aware of the difference between a conspiracy and variables in research methodologies. When the skewing data become intentional to drive results you may in fact have a conspiracy – weather politically or financially motivated. Do you become a conspiracy theorist because you are aware that this is a possibility and that it has been done in the past? Seems it is just an easy label to dismiss a counterargument without addressing it.

Back to the original topic - I still have not received any concrete argument that teaching 10 year olds about contraception will make them better members of society.

 

[Pat_the_elder]

As a product of the ‘olden days,’ I can only offer my personal experience. In my high school, we had no sex education whatever. In my high school, there were no teen pregnancies. None. Zero.

I’m in the same boat JIm. Mind you my high school was all boys!

 

[JimG]

I’m in the same boat JIm. Mind you my high school was all boys!

Not mine. It was boys and girls. But nobody offered us condoms. And the school didn’t provide daycare for children of kids.

 

[Corki]

Being promiscuous does not make them a burden on society, but getting STDs or pregnant while still a teenager does. Therefore the government can intervene to prevent teen pregnancy and STDs. What approach is best? That is a scientific question. Most studies find that strict abstinence-only programs don’t work as well as classes which cover condom use.

You may point me to: archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/2/152
But I will remind you of: guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2010/02/03/EvidenceCheck-Jemmott-Study.pdf

Now you changed the premise. You originally said that schools are to teach children to be productive members of society. That is a different standard than to avoid being a burden. Teaching promiscuity creates adults who are poor contributors to society if measured by any yardstick other than monetary. On the other hand, a teen who becomes pregnant may be a short term monetary burden on society but a long term contributor. (for what it’s worth, most of what goes into a school-based education is not focused on the goal of creating contributing members of society - but that’s a subject for another thread).

As for the studies, I have read several. They tend to be apples to oranges comparisons. The abstinence programs have a goal of stopping or at least delaying teen sexual activity. The so-called “comprehensive” programs have a goal to lower teen pregnancy rates or STDs while encouraging the activity that the abstinence programs work to lower. Different goals - different metrics - different results.

 

[MissRose73]

I do not understand why 10 years need to know this detail and take tests about it. I did not receive comprehensive sex education in the public school system, but I was raised to wait for marriage etc with my Catholic upbringing (at home and religious education).

Kids need to be kids at 10 not worrying about sexual matters. I can understand making sure they understand some things about their developing bodies but some things can wait til they are teens & given instruction based on Catholic teaching not what some public school teacher wants to tell them.