Within two weeks, my wife Gretchen and I will become parents.
I worry more than a little about our daughter growing up in a society that seems to have already yielded to the State the status of full-time parent.
Read this from an entirely fiskable column by Nicole Brodeur in the Seattle Times [emphases added]:
In recent years, nearly $1 billion in state and federal funds have been spent on abstinence- only education. Not only does it deny young people vital information on the effectiveness of condoms and other contraceptives, it puts them at a higher risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.Were you aware that encouraging abstinence puts your children at higher risk of disease and pregnancy? My main objection, however: since when is information, any information, only available to citizens when the government spends money on it?
If you conclude that money spent on educating wise choices denies vital information to young people, you must assume the state alone can provide it. Does she really think sexually active youth won't know what condoms are if the school doesn't teach them? Further, Brodeur is here suggesting that parents bear little to no responsibility, that this most private of family issues is a federal matter.
She's wrong to think education on sexuality is the state's calling: if you're a parent, it's your job, and no one else's.
My child will have only two parents. "Uncle Sam" can retain a mildly avuncular role, but never paternal.
UPDATE: Incidentally, SoundPolitics contributor Matt Rosenberg has an interesting take on spirituality and parenting: Spirituality: A Light That Shines Brightest At Home.
What they should tell guys is that the state has the right to garnish up to 50% of their income PLUS any medical expenses for their out of wedlock off spring or the children that the courts systematically remove from them during the divorce process. They should also tell guys that they will have absolutely no right to make any parenting decisions for those children at all. EVEN better the state is considering extending the support period through grad school. Never mind that the support for college expenses is paid to the mother and not child.
Don't even get me started on imputed income.
China's laws on parenting are looking pretty good from the aspect of this sperm donor.
Schools should strongly emphasize that the only certain way to prevent pregnancy is through abstinence. However, it seems like those who say we shouldn't also educate students on other preventive measures are sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALA" at the problem.
There's a healthy balance: we shouldn't ignore the positive effects of educating our youth about contraception and STD prevention, but we shouldn't be passing out condoms in school or otherwise enabling or encouraging sexual activity.
Posted by: Greg on January 16, 2005 03:54 PMKids know that condoms exist, yet by no means all of them know how to use them, and even fewer can get them. Since teaching abstinence provably does not work, the next best fall-back is condoms.
By all means, do teach your kids sex ed at home. Do it early enough, and you might avoid becoming a grandparent by age 32. Please, tho, do NOT rely on abstinence as the only way to avoid both pregnancy and disease.
Posted by: Jeannette on January 16, 2005 04:00 PMFirst, the PLU Health Center received a particularly large shipment of condoms at the beginning of this school year. At our first CR meeting of the year, several of our members showed the Executive Committe the free "rain coats".
Can you guess the picture displayed on the wrapper??? Two MEN engaged in foreplay, and/or two men kissing. Imagine our surprise! But hey, I guess homosexuals occupy a large market base for birth control products (does this make any sense?!?!?!)
High School sex education, much like anti-Marijuana propaganda, has always sought to spread FEAR. For good reason, both are dangerous to adolescents. Do you really think the sex-ed and DARE courses of years past have been successful? I am willing to be that another "JUST SAY NO" campaign will also likely fail.
Another threat is that as long as lefties occupy instructional positions, we all have much to fear. We need to create a conservative teachers assoc. to recruit more responsible educators!
At the end of the day, it is most certainly the parents responsibility to educate about matters of sex, drugs, and alcohol.
Besides, if our teachers are struggling to teach kids to pass the WASL, who is to say they can or have the time to teach students adequately about such important subjects?!?!
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 16, 2005 04:11 PMTeen pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted disease rates increased dramatically *after* sex ed became agressive in the schools! Bi-sexuallity and homosexuallity rates also increased after agressive HIV education was implemented in the public schools!
Sex Education should have never left the home! And some forms of it should have never left the closet!
JMHO (Just my humble opinion)
Posted by: Deborah on January 16, 2005 04:12 PMThe problem is that many [liberal] educators and administrators feel that sex before [insert an age or your standards here] is an outdated concept, and that to be “liberated” we must throw out the “old outdated” conservative traditions that regard sex as special or even sacred.
While I personally think that it should solely be the parent’s responsibility to teach about sex, the fact is that parents and community organizations (including churches) have stopped addressing the issue, and schools have stepped in. I think Brian's point is that the state shouldn't STOP teaching abstinence as if condoms and other sex-ed are more important. An abstinent young person has no chance of getting pregnant outside of rape, yet a sexually active young person has a 3-5% chance of getting (or getting someone else) pregnant, even with a condom. Studies have shown that sex-ed increases the chances that students will have sex unless there is an abstinence emphasis.
You all so uptight.
Posted by: dolly on January 16, 2005 04:58 PMNOT OVER MY DEAD BODY will anyone take that parental right, privilege and responsibility away from me. That's one reason why we home school. Thankfully, my children are learning the difference between right and wrong. They are happy people.
I have relatives who didn't home school and are now paying DEARLY for letting strangers take over their children's hearts and minds. They now have MAJOR problems.
And I don't want to hear any lies and excuses from liberals, especially those who make blood money at Planned Parenthood. If they haven't noticed yet, the DEATH CULTURE is on the way out! It only leads to death (of values, relationships, even lives). No wonder liberals are so MISERABLE.
That's because serving oneself, at the expense of others, doesn't help anyone to become a better person.
Posted by: TADD on January 16, 2005 05:42 PMBut many kids have parents who are simply not there. They work, or they're off being habitual drug users themselves, or what have you. Something, somewhere, trying to reach to these kids and get through to just a few of them isn't a bad idea. I know *we* aren't gonna do it. We're good people, all of us, I'm sure (hehe, ok, maybe not). We might take a personal interest in a neighbor kid or distant relative and try to help them out if their parent is AWOL, but even all of us together couldn't clean up all the mess that's out there.
You don't want these programs, well just remember, one day your sheltered home schooled kid is gonna have to go out into the real world and interact w/these kids who had AWOL parents and who went through the public school system. Even if your kids aren't in that system, you should still be concerned about the state it is in, because it will affect your kids anyways.
So the real question about sex ed, drug education, etc... isn't so much - what are they gonna teach your kids. Because your kids have you, and you are taking a role in your kids life and you are more than capable of steering them clear of any curve balls the school might try to throw at them well before the school even makes the pitch. No, the question is - what should the school be teaching to these kids who had AWOL parents, or even worse, bad role model parents who actively promote to their children the antithesis of what most good people stand for, conservative and liberal alike. These programs aren't for the benefit of kids who have already been taught the basics by their parents, they are for the kids who haven't heard any of this stuff before.
If you think kids all know that condoms are less than 90 percent effective against disease, you are wrong. Just ask a few. They think the pregnancy statistic also applies to disease, most of 'em. If you think sex ed increases pregnancies and STD's, look at the present day african countries w/horrific aids epidemic problems, that are only now trying to educate their public about teh dangers involved (way too late). They didn't have sex ed, and look where it got them.
Granted, schools don't necessarily have to be the place this reaching out is done. But it sure is a convenient choice, its the one place we have all the kids in the same place.
I wouldn't mind it if parents had some say in what teh school taught their kids in this regard either, like having the ability to let their kids simply test through it (just make sure they know what an STD is, the odds of getting it, condoms aren't a shield from STD's, some of the very basics). After all, if a parent is showing interest enough to get invovled w/the school and take his kid out of sex ed so he could teach him/her himself, then he's obviously not the AWOL kind of parent we are mostly worried about. All the kids w/AWOL parents, or who couldn't correctly answer the few simple questions needed to test out of it, in such a scenario, would still have to attend sex-ed.
To change the tone a little, on a similar note, I've been witness to a lot of kids growing up into adults. Its not scientific, I know, its just the trend from my observations, I won't try and pretend otherwise, but you know which kids ended up to be the least likely to end up w/an early pregnancy/STD, jail (drug, theft, etc..)? The busy kids. The kids who had all the AP classes, extra classes (zero hour, after hours), the hard classes (math, computer science, engineering, physics, chemistry) and maybe a job in addition to all that. They simply didn't have the *time*. They weren't out at parties or social functons all the time like most of us (myself included, I didn't become a bookworm until college). I was the party animal myself and made it just fine, but I was lucky, many of my friends at the time did not. Oh, very few are in jail, I don't mean that, but many married way too early in their life (usually due to a pregnancy) and nowadays aren't the happiest of campers. (though a few got lucky and ended up doing well and bein' happy despite the rough start). Almost none achieved their dreams, their marriage/pregnancy sidetracking them.
While the busy kids, on the other hand, are only now just starting to marry, late 20's, early 30's, *after* having accomplished their dreams or at least explored them enough to develop new dreams. There were still a couple who didn't make it, even in that crowd, but the correlation really seemed to be rather strong. I'd be curious as to anyone else's impressions in that regard.
Posted by: FreakyDeaky on January 16, 2005 07:00 PMHeh.....If parents were legally entitled to opt their kids out of sex ed!
OKay....I can remove my children from the public school system sex ed program....but the Public Schools HIV program is mandatory! Go figure?
So the argument that kids are not going to get enough information with the abstinence program is stupid! The kids are still going to get way too much information - more than whats good for their impressionable hormone raging bodies!
As a parent, I cannot legally keep my kids away from this study! State law requires that my child get 5 hours of HIV education! This is absurd!
AWOL Parents? Hah! That is so 80's! Parents today are returing to their traditional roles in droves! Many mothers are choosing to once again stay home. Parents are arranging their work schedules so that one of them are there for the kids during the day.
No - not all of these parents are choosing to home-school! The majority are still using the public school system....for now...
The most frightening thing for the liberal agenda is when Parents finally start using some common sense and take back their children....
It's happening! The momentum has just begun....there is no stopping it....
Posted by: Deborah on January 16, 2005 08:08 PM"I can remove my children from the public school system sex ed program....but the Public Schools HIV program is mandatory! Go figure?"
First of all, do you have a problem with your children learning about HIV? There's no good reason why students should not be educated about HIV and other STDs in school. I would much rather my children learn about these issues from a qualified instructor. I certainly know the basics, but I know that I, nor are most parents knowledgable enough to properly instruct kids or respond to their questions. I don't understand how it is "absurd" that your children are being taught about HIV/AIDS. Are you qualified to teach them? Are you going to pull your kids out of biology class because they teach evolution? Why not allow your kids to be exposed to these things and come to their own conclusions instead of trying to brainwash them?
And unfortunately Deborah, AWOL parents are a reality. I wouldn't be surprised if you were living in a comfortable suburban community. Try moving to the city or to a poor area and you will likely change your opinion. Whoever said that the parents who take responsibility to pull their kids from sex-ed, or properly teach children themselves are not the kind of parents we're worried about is DEAD ON.
Sadly, there are many children whose parents are not responsible enough to give them "the talk". I realize these parents "should" be responsible but they just aren't. It's not the childrens' fault their parents are AWOL. It is these children who are most prone to getting pregnant or an STD anyways.
So we have two issues: First of all, there are very few parents qualified to teach their kids about STDs. Let a qualified health instructor do that.
Second, there is a definite need for comprehensive sex education for many children. If you want to teach your kids about it yourself, that is excellent, and something to be proud of. But there are many who are not so fortunate, and we musn't forget about them.
Posted by: Greg on January 16, 2005 08:47 PM(takes tongue out of cheek)
Posted by: Michele S on January 16, 2005 09:02 PMCall me reasonable, but I think there's a healthy balance between total social responsibility for a child and complete social isolation.
Posted by: Greg on January 16, 2005 09:08 PM"First of all, do you have a problem with your children learning about HIV?"
Absolutely! When it's taught in a liberal public school setting. The bridge between HIV and Homosexuality is quickly made - yet it is not discouraged..instead - homosexuality is launched into a separate side discussion in a positive light...It is then celebrated! The entire teaching of HIV becames a promotion for homosexuality! The main cause of transmission of AIDS! And traditional sex ed becomes an option...
Greg,
You are sadly underestimating the changes in the attitudes of ALL parents. Yes - I'm from the *hood*...Rainier Valley! Have you been there lately? Yes..there are still your pockets of hopelessness and drugs.....but there is a change too... I suggest you get out of the suburbs and take a look....
Parents have a Masters degree in their children. No college course is going to be able to compete with that reality.....
Posted by: Deborah on January 16, 2005 09:14 PMGreg.....
How very *Sociali st* of you!
Isn't Sociali sm the bastard child of Communism?....And you want to teach our kids sex education? No wonder you want to minimize the parental role!
(and if you're wondering why I had to split some words up..It wouldn't allow me to post anything that was close to ciali s)
Posted by: Deborah on January 16, 2005 09:22 PMExplain to me the causal relationship, the cause and effect here.
You just said that if a school doesn't tell kids about condoms, they create--cause-- a higher chance of 'disease and pregnancy.' If teachers don't talk about handgun safety, are they causing higher chance of gun accidents? If teachers don't warn about eating glass, are they causing higher chances of disembowelment? Illogical. You and Brodeur prepetrate the same basic fallacy: if they don't teach it, they're responsible.
What i am telling you, if you will listen, is that it doesn't matter what the schools do, they can't be parents.
You don't want teachers instructing religion. Fine. Not their job. I don't want teachers instructing my kid in how to use contraceptives. Not their job.
I'd prefer they teach my kid logic and forensics, so they can deflate liberal pieties and victim mentality. As if.
I might call Brodeur's statement an example of the post hoc fallacy, but it's more likely the fallacy of insignificance. That is, she and you refer to this insignificant factor when the real cause is vastly greater.
If kids are pregnant it's because society is teaching them, outside the school, that there are no consequences. Parents are treated like interlopers, like they aren't allowed to control behavior or expect obedience. The media is soaking their hormone -addled brains with SEX 24/7, while at the same time making religion and tradition into jokes. Parents shirk their duties....
...and you and Brodeur babble on about how the Bush administration is to blame for not giving federal funds to show pre-teens how to put condoms on bananas. Like that's really the problem.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 16, 2005 09:36 PMBut if there's going to be sex ed in the classroom, it ought to be the best, most effective education we know how to provide. Otherwise you have the worst of both worlds -- government spending money and setting standards, and yet still requiring every parent to fill in the missing details.
http://www.brook.org.uk/contentplain/M6_1_5_abstinence.asp : “There is evidence to suggest that teenagers who pledge to remain abstinent until marriage [] are less likely to use contraception when they do have sex.”, “graduates of abstinence programmes had rates of sexually transmitted infection very similar to other young people. [] they were significantly less likely to use condoms and were less aware of sexually transmitted infections”, and “a review [] by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination concluded that good, comprehensive sex and relationships education which starts before the onset of sexual activity does not make young people more likely to have sex. In fact it helps them to delay starting sex and makes them more likely to use contraception when they do”.
Posted by: jeremy on January 16, 2005 10:07 PMScare your kids with pictures of STD's, make it clear you don't believe in sex outside of marriage, and do KEEP them busy!
But do not, DO NOT, keep the facts from them. If you want to present the information to them, fine- no one is stopping you. As for HIV-AIDS- it's an epidemic that warrants "mandated" instruction. Ignorance begets ignorance, but knowledge is power. I agree, the presentation can be perverted when delivered from liberals (but isn't everything about them perverted ;-)
GLBT (THE PC term for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Trans-gendered) should be given, if at all, under the title "SEXUAL DEVIANCY". No one will ever convince me that it is "natural" or that there's a "biological fact" to such behavior. Tolerance, ok- Acceptance, forge it!
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 16, 2005 10:23 PMI've come full circle on sex eduction. The schools should teach it. The kids that really benefit are the kids with checked out parents who won't get it anywhere else. And it's not hurting the kids with active parents.
In the eyes of children, there is no replacement for parents.
And it is parents who are the natural Doctors of their children. If only they pick up the stethoscope.
Parenting is an awesome responsibility, but it really is life's greatest joy as well.
May your wife's delivery go smooth and enjoy parenthood.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2005 10:59 PMCongratulations to you and your dear wife on the pending birth of your child!
How exciting and wonderful it must be for you!
We rant and moan here in the blog...We dive deep into subjects that are dark and dim and less than positive.....and try...TRULY try..to maintain our civility!
Yet - it's all for nothing - if we can't take a breath and appreciate the great things in life - as in the birth of a child!
May your child bring a perfect balance to your lives.
Deborah: I most certainly do not want to minimize the role of parents. In fact, parents are the most stabilizing and influential factor in a child's life. However, it is ignorant and counterproductive to isolate someone's children from the realities of life. I would bet dollars to donuts I have a better understanding of this than you, since I only graduated from high school five years ago.
When my parents begun raising me (I am the oldest of my siblings), they had the choice of whether to put me through private Lutheran school or to send me to public school. They decided to send me to public school, and I thank them for that. Private school is a bubble, and while it may better prepare students for academia, it does not do a good job of socializing students to live and work with others from different backgrounds.
I'm not a liberal by any means, but parents of children these days must recognize that there are certain issues which their children will encounter which they did not have to deal with in their time. STDs are just one of those issues. It is imperative that our children learn about these things!
Also, I'm not sure when you actually took part in high school sex ed curriculum, but I bet I was in it more recently than you. Nowhere did I see an association with homosexuality, let alone a promotion of it. I'm afraid you have been misled. Homosexuality is not "celebrated" as you claim. But it certainly is a reality of our world today, and it is good that our children understand that it exists.
Regardless, there is still ample opportunity for parents to educate their children about sex and other issues related to it. For instance, if your family considers homosexuality to be a sin, there is ample opportunity to teach your kids about that, and they will listen!
I'm tired of conservatives who are so willing to shelter their kids from other ideas. If home and family are strong enough, exposure to competing ideas will easily be offset by home in the first place. I don't think you have anything to worry about in your household. But it's important to remember that students who are being taught about STDs are mature enough to understand the topic. Telling a student about sex, STDs, and pregnancy aren't going to automatically make them go out and have sex. If you have a strong household, you have nothing to worry about.
Stop treating these kids like they're being brainwashed.
Posted by: Greg on January 17, 2005 02:38 AMThat is the approach we used until the early 1980s.
So if that approach is inferior to public school sex ed, we should expect that pregnancies, STDs, etc. would be lower now than in, say, the 1970s, right?
See http://www.teenshelter.org/data.htm:
Prenancy per thousand US teens in 1972: 49.4
In 1975: 63.1
In 1980: 78.3
In 1985: 89.6
In 1988: 93.0
In 1990: 99.2
(It's come down since 1991, but still isn't at the 1972 level.)
Given those aggregate statistics, though, it is extremely hard to argue that sex education has reduced teen pregnancy overall.
In order to argue that, you'd have to claim teen pregnancy would be even higher than it is right now, in the hypothetical world that has had no sex education for the last 20 years.
Moreover, I suspect that the sex-ed advocates realize that the numbers do make their case awkward. If you poke around for numbers, it is easy to come across charts showing the decline since 1990-1991. OTOH, the data from earlier decades seems to be left out of most of the presentations.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 17, 2005 12:34 PMAh yes. How dare we shelter our children from ideas we neither agree with, nor support. We must hand them to people with other agendas, to not only teach them things we find morally repugnant, but who have the authority to grade them and *fail* them for not learning and parroting it back adequately.
Posted by: Angela B. on January 17, 2005 04:31 PM