(no subject)
Aug. 29th, 2003 07:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccastareyesEditorial in the paper today by a guy who seemed to think that anything but 'abstinece only' sex ed will lead to our children being bisexual sluts.
First of all, morality is like a house -- if you don't have a foundation, all the fancy trimmings won't do you any good. And, let's face it, by the time you're taking your first sex ed class, you either have a good moral foundation or you don't. Knowing how to put on a condom and where one can get one will NOT encourage promiscuity -- a student that is already mentally commited to 'abstinece only' will just shrug it off and a student that isn't might avoid having an unwanted pregnacy or STD. And something that the writer didn't mention -- most sex ed classes I've heard of also bring up the failure rates of various methods. Namely, that all of them can fail except one -- abstience.
The editorial says that most parents want their kids in abstience only programs. Yet how many of these parents are willing to sit down and tak to their kids about sex? Honestly, just having a good relationship with one's parents and knowing they would not approve can do wonders to prevent things. Churches, too -- if a person believes promiscuity is against their religion, they aren't gonna go out and have los of sex, are they?
Finally, on the matter of having situational roleplaying -- the sort where two student sare given a situation and are told to act it out, in the belief they will learn effective strategies that way -- and having two students of the same gender: face it, homosexual relations exist. While the risk of getting pregenant from such things is zero, the risk of an STD is not. And this again goes back to morality -- if you think homosexual sex is immoral, you won't do it. And your opinion either way was formed well before you sat down in your class and learned how to put a condom on a cucumber.
First of all, morality is like a house -- if you don't have a foundation, all the fancy trimmings won't do you any good. And, let's face it, by the time you're taking your first sex ed class, you either have a good moral foundation or you don't. Knowing how to put on a condom and where one can get one will NOT encourage promiscuity -- a student that is already mentally commited to 'abstinece only' will just shrug it off and a student that isn't might avoid having an unwanted pregnacy or STD. And something that the writer didn't mention -- most sex ed classes I've heard of also bring up the failure rates of various methods. Namely, that all of them can fail except one -- abstience.
The editorial says that most parents want their kids in abstience only programs. Yet how many of these parents are willing to sit down and tak to their kids about sex? Honestly, just having a good relationship with one's parents and knowing they would not approve can do wonders to prevent things. Churches, too -- if a person believes promiscuity is against their religion, they aren't gonna go out and have los of sex, are they?
Finally, on the matter of having situational roleplaying -- the sort where two student sare given a situation and are told to act it out, in the belief they will learn effective strategies that way -- and having two students of the same gender: face it, homosexual relations exist. While the risk of getting pregenant from such things is zero, the risk of an STD is not. And this again goes back to morality -- if you think homosexual sex is immoral, you won't do it. And your opinion either way was formed well before you sat down in your class and learned how to put a condom on a cucumber.
