Fifth Graders Quizzed on Proper Condom Use

[louis91766]

I do not understand why 10 years need to know this detail and take tests about it.

i am not sure, but I do read in the news about adults having forced and unwanted sex with children. these adults are many times repeat offenders and have all kinds of expert lawyers to defend them against prosecution and when they are found guilty, they are given light sentences. Perhaps this is an attempt to protect the female child from getting pregnant in such a situation.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

i am not sure, but I do read in the news about adults having forced and unwanted sex with children. these adults are many times repeat offenders and have all kinds of expert lawyers to defend them against prosecution and when they are found guilty, they are given light sentences. Perhaps this is an attempt to protect the female child from getting pregnant in such a situation.

Of course! A 10 year old girl who is getting raped by her 45 year old uncle Fred is going to ask him to stop and put on a condom.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

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.

There are two sets of kids:
Those who abstain from sex until marriage, and those that do not.

Let us consider the effect of education about contraception on the first group. There is no real effect, studies show that education about contraception does not increase sexual activity, so no one will be leaving the “abstain from sex” group simply by attending such a health class. Moreover, since they will not have sex until then, they will never need to use what they learned.

Let us consider the second group. What effect would teaching them about contraception have? It would make them better members of society because their behavior would be less risky. They would spread less disease, and get pregnant less often. We mandate drivers education for the exact same reason: it is important to reduce the risks associated with an activity that has the potential to harm others. You would probably like to argue that it is possible to convince all kids to abstain until marriage, but even in the example of the successful abstinence program (which was not an “abstain-until-marriage” program), 1/3rd of the kids still became sexually active within 2 years. The program took place in the 7th grade and had to screen out kids who were already sexually active.

 

[jam070406]

There are two sets of kids:
Those who abstain from sex until marriage, and those that do not.

Let us consider the effect of education about contraception on the first group. There is no real effect, studies show that education about contraception does not increase sexual activity, so no one will be leaving the “abstain from sex” group simply by attending such a health class. Moreover, since they will not have sex until then, they will never need to use what they learned.

Let us consider the second group. What effect would teaching them about contraception have? It would make them better members of society because their behavior would be less risky. They would spread less disease, and get pregnant less often. We mandate drivers education for the exact same reason: it is important to reduce the risks associated with an activity that has the potential to harm others. You would probably like to argue that it is possible to convince all kids to abstain until marriage, but even in the example of the successful abstinence program (which was not an “abstain-until-marriage” program), 1/3rd of the kids still became sexually active within 2 years. The program took place in the 7th grade and had to screen out kids who were already sexually active.

They should make kids change baby diapers and feed newborns every couple of hours throughout the night for a week.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

They should make kids change baby diapers and feed newborns every couple of hours throughout the night for a week.

There are classes which try to teach kids the responsibilities of parenting.
cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/magazine/spring02/babies.htm

They are frequently part of the same health classes that teach about STDs, condoms and pregnancy.

 

[jam070406]

There are classes which try to teach kids the responsibilities of parenting.
cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/magazine/spring02/babies.htm

They are frequently part of the same health classes that teach about STDs, condoms and pregnancy.

Teaching kids about the consequences of their actions is different from teaching them to dodge responsibility and give into their passions.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Teaching kids about the consequences of their actions is different from teaching them to dodge responsibility and give into their passions.

It sounds to me like you are saying that kids who have premarital sex deserve pregnancies or STDs.

 

[mtbender]

There are two sets of kids:
Those who abstain from sex until marriage, and those that do not.

We already disagree here - there is one group – 10 year olds who do not have the maturity and cognitive skills to make a comprehensive decision on sexual activity. The assertion that group “B” is going to have sex anyway so what does it matter is flawed at so many levels – especially at the age group we are talking about.

Can you provide the study referenced above?

Let us consider the second group. What effect would teaching them about contraception have? It would make them better members of society because their behavior would be less risky.

Perpetuating “promiscuous” behavior is less risky and makes them better members of society? I am not sure I can make the connection there.

They would spread less disease, and get pregnant less often. We mandate drivers education for the exact same reason: it is important to reduce the risks associated with an activity that has the potential to harm others.

Which abstinence does as well, but with a higher success rate.

You would probably like to argue that it is possible to convince all kids to abstain until marriage, but even in the example of the successful abstinence program (which was not an “abstain-until-marriage” program), 1/3rd of the kids still became sexually active within 2 years. The program took place in the 7th grade and had to screen out kids who were already sexually active.

What the study you site also shows is that those who had a 12 hour comprehensive education program had the highest increase in sexual activity, and a higher percent of multiple partners. Interestingly enough, it showed that those who had the abstinence-only instruction were more responsible when they chose to have sex – with a higher percentage of condom use.

[/QUOTE]

 

[jam070406]

It sounds to me like you are saying that kids who have premarital sex deserve pregnancies or STDs.

Kids should be taught self control and moral consequence.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

It sounds to me like you are saying that kids who have premarital sex deserve pregnancies or STDs.

Ummm, YES. The consequences of sex include STD and pregnancy. In a marriage, pregnancy is a blessing and STD is a non-factor if both of the parties are chaste prior to.

 

[jam070406]

Ummm, YES. The consequences of sex include STD and pregnancy. In a marriage, pregnancy is a blessing and STD is a non-factor if both of the parties are chaste prior to.

Yeah, and image, in TheTrueCenterist’s world there should be no moral reservation for someone with an STD to continue to fornicate. Just wear a condom and all your responsibilities disappear. We wouldn’t want having an STD get in the way of satisfying one’s lust would we?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

We already disagree here - there is one group – 10 year olds who do not have the maturity and cognitive skills to make a comprehensive decision on sexual activity. The assertion that group “B” is going to have sex anyway so what does it matter is flawed at so many levels – especially at the age group we are talking about.

Can you provide the study referenced above?

There are only two possible groups, group A and not group A.

I already have, well back in the discussion:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X07004260

Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .8, 95% CI = .51–1.31, p = .40), but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .49–1.02, p = .06).

Perpetuating “promiscuous” behavior is less risky and makes them better members of society? I am not sure I can make the connection there.

Which abstinence does as well, but with a higher success rate.

Does drivers ed make safer drivers? Yes. The fact is that many kids are going to have sex at a young age. We should try to make sure they don’t ruin their lives out of ignorance about the consequences of their actions.

Abstinence effective simply by virtue of being abstinence. There are a plethora of studies which show rigid “abstain until marriage” classes are significantly less successful than comprehensive health classes, they border on completely ineffective. There is evidence that telling kids (such as these 10 year olds) to wait until they are older and more mature (i.e. not necessarily until marriage) is effective.

What the study you site also shows is that those who had a 12 hour comprehensive education program had the highest increase in sexual activity, and a higher percent of multiple partners. Interestingly enough, it showed that those who had the abstinence-only instruction were more responsible when they chose to have sex – with a higher percentage of condom use.

Likely because it was a honest abstinence class. They did not downplay the effectiveness of condoms, nor allow misconceptions about condoms.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Yeah, and image, in TheTrueCenterist’s world there should be no moral reservation for someone with an STD to continue to fornicate. Just wear a condom and all your responsibilities disappear. We wouldn’t want having an STD get in the way of satisfying one’s lust would we?

How medieval. Do you believe modern medicine is sinful because it controverts diseases, which are clearly the punishment of God?

 

[louis91766]

Of course! A 10 year old girl who is getting raped by her 45 year old uncle Fred is going to ask him to stop and put on a condom.

True. And of course there are other actions that the girl can take after the rape to help her.
The problem is that Americans have setup a system which protects many criminals from prosecution and enriches the pockets of lawyers who are skilled at getting these criminals off the hook. Americans seem to have little compassion for the victim of the crime and as a result, repeat criminal offenders are on the streets ready to prey on young people. Catholics in particular are averse to capital punishment and as a result the jails are overcrowded and this in turn leads to early releases.
Perhaps people are trying to give the young child at least some information which will help her to minimise the effect of crimes such as you have mentioned.

 

[jam070406]

How medieval. Do you believe modern medicine is sinful because it controverts diseases, which are clearly the punishment of God?

Oh, yes. How medieval. Actually expecting someone to control their willful lust is such an outdated, unenlightened idea.

 

[JimG]

It is remarkable to me that we assume that ten year old kids will be future fornicators, and consequently must be taught the “safest” way to engage in fornication. It seems to me that children often tend to meet our expectations, so I would hope for higher expectations. It does seem rather insulting to them that we expect nothing better of them.

It’s as though we took the position that we know they are going to shoplift, so they should learn how best not to get caught, and when robbing convenience stores to always wear bulletproof vests. (“We’re not telling you to do it, but when you do, carry heat.”)

 

[mtbender]

There are only two possible groups, group A and not group A.

Or as I have previously said, one group – 10 year old children…

I already have, well back in the discussion:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X07004260

We have cited many studies back & forth in these discussions, I just wanted to make sure I have the right one…

The study in question is contradicted by the later study that we also discussed.

archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/2/152

If you compare the two methodologies, the later study controlled the education as well as followed up with the students in the study groups. The previous study was based on respondent (name removed by moderator)ut to evaluate what education they received and there was no respondent follow-up. This leaves a lot of room for error. One seems to be more comprehensive than the other based on the methods used.

Does drivers ed make safer drivers? Yes. The fact is that many kids are going to have sex at a young age. We should try to make sure they don’t ruin their lives out of ignorance about the consequences of their actions.

Teaching consequences is different than teaching to use condoms. Abstinence education teaches consequences as well as responsible behavior. Teaching to use condoms is teaching young children (keep in mind we are talking of 10 year olds) that it is acceptable to make irresponsible decisions as long as you do it safely.

Abstinence effective simply by virtue of being abstinence.

True, and it is also the only 100% method as well.

There are a plethora of studies which show rigid “abstain until marriage” classes are significantly less successful than comprehensive health classes, they border on completely ineffective. There is evidence that telling kids (such as these 10 year olds) to wait until they are older and more mature (i.e. not necessarily until marriage) is effective. Likely because it was a honest abstinence class. They did not downplay the effectiveness of condoms, nor allow misconceptions about condoms.

In addition to that, it taught how to negotiate and resist peer pressure. Seems like a win-win to me. Less kids having sex, less kids being promiscuous, and kids with better coping and life skills… Where am I wrong?

 

[He_Man]

There is a proper way, it is defined as the use that allows condoms to accomplish their intended function (i.e. prevent pregnancy / STDs.) You are saying that there is no moral application, however moral objections ought to come from a parent, not a public school teacher.

Notice that all your other examples have a commonality: they are illegal for children to do. We therefore have a clear reason for such subjects not to be taught in schools: the government is not going to teach kids how to do things it has decided are harmful to kids.

You’re correct in the same way there is a proper way to murder someone in their sleep, and gouge someone’s eyeballs out with a pencil. While there may be certain form to be adhered to in order to “do it right”, the act itself is wrong.

 

[jmcrae]

It is remarkable to me that we assume that ten year old kids will be future fornicators, and consequently must be taught the “safest” way to engage in fornication. It seems to me that children often tend to meet our expectations, so I would hope for higher expectations. It does seem rather insulting to them that we expect nothing better of them.

It’s as though we took the position that we know they are going to shoplift, so they should learn how best not to get caught, and when robbing convenience stores to always wear bulletproof vests. (“We’re not telling you to do it, but when you do, carry heat.”)

I was reading an article in the paper yesterday that was telling people to say that they have had seven or more sexual partners (even if they have never had sex before) in order to be able to get a date in today’s “dating scene.”

That has to be the saddest (and also possibly the stupidest) thing I’ve ever read. But we have definitely lost our moral footing, already.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I was reading an article in the paper yesterday that was telling people to say that they have had seven or more sexual partners (even if they have never had sex before) in order to be able to get a date in today’s “dating scene.”

That has to be the saddest (and also possibly the stupidest) thing I’ve ever read. But we have definitely lost our moral footing, already.

I sometimes can’t help but think that we are so far gone, that we are truly lost and there is no hope. Then, hubby almost always tells me that we are called to hopeful. That helps. Most of the time.