i just can't see how people can think that way. People need to be aware of the risks. I'm glad i get some extensive sex ed in my school division every 2-3 years. I think this year is the one where it really makes an impact, and people went into it more. It's telling you about the risks and everything. I would think it would scare people into NOT having sex. Hehehe.
------------------ "A six foot tall anorexic bimbo,with plastic breasts is making me feel weird about my own body." -Miss Bif Naked
We need to get back to family values and good clean morals! We need to return to the year 1952, when men were Men, and women were stuck in the kitchen! A time when you could call the fairy down the street a nancy-boy to his face! A time when ice-cream was all dribbly because we didn't have freezers, and we didn't have Survivor or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire!
Its almost worth suffering the rest, just to get rid of the scourge of horrible game shows. ;p
Now, what was the topic again? Sex ed = more sex? Somewhat farcical. Its a bit like saying that teaching aerodynamics leads to more people playing Superman. ;p
------------------ Good: "Good evening, Mr Bigglesworth. I'm dating your daughter Lauren." Bad: "Hi tubby! I'm the guy who's porking your daughter!"
Jeez, in my health class they showed us a VERY UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL video of a lady giving birth...that was almost enough to get me to stop having sex immediately! I mean, they were RIGHT UP IN THERE! I don't want to go through that anytime soon.
Posts: 304 | From: Pittsburgh PA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Besides, people who think that sex ed makes kids more sexually active are ignorant...that's like saying kids who take calculus are more likely to become calculus teachers.
Posts: 304 | From: Pittsburgh PA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
That lack of STD awareness worries me more than the other findings of the study make me happy. Really. The study mirrors my own experiences with the people I am surrounded with at Uni. Many have no idea about STDs and those who have a clue think "it can't hit me". Urgh.
In general, I think good sex ed doesn't make students have more sex, only better aka safer and more "aware" sex. IMO, good sex ed is about empowering people to make choices that are the best for them and living those choices safely. Good sex ed is giving the tools to make the right decisions, so to say.
I bet if we made a study on Scarleteeners and how coming to this site (and getting all this cool info, talking about sex and all issues around it) has influenced their sexual behaviour, I bet we wouldn't find an increase in sex (however you want to measure that) but an increase in safer sex practices, getting on reliable birth control, general contentment with being sexually active and feeling good about the choices we all make for ourselves.
*sigh* I love our love bubble.
------------------ "We must become the change we want to see." Mahatma Gandhi
The idea that sex education leads to more sex is based on the idea that kids don't know about sex to begin w/. If you don't teach a child about hormones and what can happen in the "heat of the moment", does that mean they don't have the feelings? You can't really teach feelings. Especially not hormonal!!
My grandparents are like this. My aunt was pregnant at 15... They sent her away to a home for "unwed mothers". Her and her siblings were never taught about sex and where babies come from ... So where on earth would she get the idea that putting slot A into slot B would result in some sort of enjoyment? Sheesh.
Kids find stuff out on their own. While my mom has taught me a lot about sexuality, I think i took it upon myself to learn more on my own. And the information is defineatly out there. Like this place, for example. Unless you're going to put your kid in a box until you think they're ready to be sexually active, then there are just no guarantees.
So arm them w/ knowledge. That's really the only thing you can do ... short of the whole box idea. But that breaks a few laws, does it not?
------------------ If you choke a smurf, what colour does it turn?
quote:Originally posted by Alaska: That lack of STD awareness worries me more than the other findings of the study make me happy. Really. The study mirrors my own experiences with the people I am surrounded with at Uni. Many have no idea about STDs and those who have a clue think "it can't hit me". Urgh.
Oh, see, in our sex ed system we didn't exactly learn about sexuality (for some odd reason, we skipped the chapter on "sexual feelings" ), but we DID learn a lot about STDs. For instance, we did this one experiment ("Sex in a Cup" was the nickname for it) in which the students were all given a cup with water and some chemicals in it. They were told to "exchange fluids" (in other words, get a spoon and put some of your water in their cup, and vice versa) with five other people. Two of the people in the class had a certain chemical in their cup (the "STD"). At the end, the teacher went around, and put a few drops of some other chemical, which would reveal if you had the "STD" or not. If it turned pink, you did. About 75% of the class had pink water. It was funny at the time, but it actually made sense, and taught us something useful.
------------------ "Only in dreams We see what it means Reach out our hands Hold on to hers But when we wake It's all been erased And so it seems Only in dreams..." -Weezer
I think the problem with education about STDs in the US is that there is too much emphasis on scaring kids about HIV/AIDs risks and not covering the much more widespread STDs, like HPV and Chalmydia, which are much easier to contract than the HIV virus.
Posts: 28 | From: København, Denamrk | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Beppie: That sounds like a damn fine experiment.
**Note** Only In Dreams and I went to elementary schools in the same School District, several years apart. I went through the "sex ed" course (which at that point was nothing more than a 20-minute talk with a male teacher) in 1989, about 10 years before Only In Dreams did.
At that point, there was no mention of AIDS. There was no mention of Herpes or any other STD for that matter. There was no mention of masturbation, the mechanics of sexual intercourse, condoms, birth control pills, how fluid exchange was dangerous...there was basically nothing. We watched the film (with an actual film projector, mind you) "John Comes of Age" for about 15 minutes, and then got a two minute slide show about the changes in women's bodies.
If you can't tell by now, it was essentially a useless course which covered the bases as provided by the State of California, but did nothing to educate or prepare us for any sort of sexual contact. Perhaps this is because we were all only 10 or 11 years old at the time, but there should have been more information regardless. I think the fact that Only In Dreams was given an actual interprative demonstration about STD's, 10 years after I got nothing at all from the same School District, shows a lot about how far Sex Ed has come in 10 years. There is still a long way to go, but its a heck of a lot more encouraging now than it was 12 years ago.
------------------ "Unit 11A to Station, do we know what's behind Door Number One?"
OID ~ We did that exact same experiment in biology during our virus and bacteria section! It was great ... We had a test tube of water w/ this solution stuff and had to trade w/ three people. Two out of the 25 people in the class originally had it (they didn't know who they were either). By the end of it, about 2 out of the whole class managed to stay "clean" ... Then we had to figure out who we got the virus from !!
Posts: 7168 | From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LilBlueSmurf: OID ~ We did that exact same experiment in biology during our virus and bacteria section! It was great ... We had a test tube of water w/ this solution stuff and had to trade w/ three people. Two out of the 25 people in the class originally had it (they didn't know who they were either). By the end of it, about 2 out of the whole class managed to stay "clean" ... Then we had to figure out who we got the virus from !!
Yeah, that sounds similar to what we did. We learned so much about STDs from that experiment! And then, at the end of the year, I wrote in my friend's yearbook: "Hey! Remember when you gave me an STD?"
------------------ "Only in dreams We see what it means Reach out our hands Hold on to hers But when we wake It's all been erased And so it seems Only in dreams..." -Weezer
Sex ed isn't the problem. The problem is that there is a need for Sex Ed classes in the first place. That parents either don't give a d*** in the first place or that they're too busy to give it any consideration. The problem is that complete strangers are teaching kids their values or the state's values. There is no such thing as "value neutral" education. Nature abhors a vacuum which means those values are going to come from somewhere.
No, sex ed isn't the reason kids are running around having sex. The main reason is that parents are failing to be parents.
I don't know about anyone elses' health class, but all mine was was the basics. "This is a penis ... This is a vagina ... " There was no "it's wrong to have premarital sex". We learned how to use a condom and what other methods of birth control were ... But i don't remember ever feeling that i should be learning morals and values from school. And my mom did teach me lots of it. I knew all about periods and sex and protection when i was nine. And then i learned a little more of it in school ... and we even had props (wooden penis, big plastic uterus thing w/ a fetus in it) so it's a little better that way.
As well, remember that everyones "morals" are different. While you're saying this should be taught, there are many parents that don't agree w/ you (Miz S has emails to prove it). I know my grandparents defineatly weren't this open w/ my dad ... and in turn he's not open about sex w/ me. Is that his fault? I don't think so. I don't blame it on him ... It's just how he was brought up.
One more thing ... It's not the fact that kids are having sex. It's that they're having sex unprotected! If young adults were to use condoms and other forms of protection, i'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion ... it just wouldn't be an issue.
------------------ When mom found my diaphram, I told her it was a bathing cap for my cat. ~ Liz Winston
I'm sure some parents don't believe morals should be taught. I'm not really surprised. All I can say is that if parents don't teach morals, someone is teaching them morals whether it be TV, peers, etc. Funny that the parents don't have a problem with that. Kind of scary if you ask me.
Also you're right that everyone does not have the same morals. You would think that because of this parents would want to pass them on to their kids. If they're not important enought to pass on, why have them in the first place?
On your last point... At first you say "kids" then say young adults. In either case, I beg to differ. You guys here are all for helping people avoid the consequences of having sex outside of marriage. It's crazy to see people jumping through all of these hoops to avoid not only the primary function of sexual relationships which is reproduction, (By the way, for those who might think that reproduction is not the primary function, then unplanned pregnancy wouldn't be an issue.) but it's also crazy to see everyone jumping through hoops to avoid all the consequences and complications that result from sex outside of marriage.
You are leaving out all kinds of the things that are harmful. A condom won't protect you from having your heart broken. It won't keep you from feeling cheap and used. It won't give you security of a commited relationship. It's NOT even 100% effective in preventing pregnancy or disease. ETC. ETC. So you're kidding when you say protected sex is the answer, right?
One, what Smurf was saying was that the majority of parents in the United States wish for sex ed to be taught in schools. For the past five years, those have been poll results in nearly every national poll done.
Secondly, everyone has their own reasons for entering into relationships, sexual and otherwise, and every realtionship has it's own purposes it may fulfill. perhaps for you, relationships are about marriage and reproduction. However, that is not the case for anyone, and in plenty of relationships, both of those things not only are not always possible, they are not always the desired aim.
I'd also suggest you do some reading when it comes to statistics, history and sociology in terms of "committed relationships" and marriages. A vow, a legal deed or a nuclear family is actually no more a guarantee of physical or emotional safety than anything else is. For that reason, our aim here is not to "protect people from the consequences of sex outside marriage," but to educate people on sexual health issues that apply whether or not someone is married. if you haven't before, you may want to also take a look at some stats on how often STDs and accidental pregnancies happen WITHIN marriage. As a matter of fact, the first huge wave of sexually transmitted disease in the US was spread when scores of soldiers from WWII brought Syphilis home to their wives.
Regardless, it is not your place, nor anyone else's, at this forum to deliver the gospel according to you, or moral value judgements, and judge anyone else by it here. If you need to do that, keep it in your head. It shows up in your posts again and you're outta here.
Miz S. basically said everything that popped into my mind already, but I did want to add a few points.
Beenthere, If traditional marriage and a nuclear family are the best representation of stability in this country, we have failed miserably. Well more than half of marriages end in divorce in this country. Obviously, even marriage offers no protection from "having your heart broken." Various Anthropological studies have established that both adults and children often do best in tribal cultures, where extended families and many caretakers provide the most stability. Nuclear families are a relatively new standard, despite what most of the moral majority would have you think. I suggest you dig into some historical data that surveys how families have changed through history around the world.
Not to mention that there are plenty on people in this country who love each other madly and deeply, but cannot legally marry. Some of those relationships, many of which I've watched evolve and change over many years, are far more stable and healthy than many marriages.
To address your comment about feeling "cheap and used" while having sex outside of marriage. Unlike you, many people do not feel that experiencing pleasure and sharing intimacy are grounds for feeling cheap and used. The fact of the matter is that we might care enough about someone to share ourselves with them, but not to spend the rest of our lives with them. Every person has to decide what is right for them. And Please, don't give me "The Bible says..." It isn't the only religious book in the world, and judeo-christianity is by no means the only religion or set or morals. It isn't even hold close to a majority of believers. You need to show a bit more respect for people on this board, and realize we have subscribers of all races, religions, and beliefs. You are in no position to judge anyone, and show a great amount of arrogance in doing so.
Just because a couple signs a piece of paper, and maybe has a ceremony or other festivity, does not guarantee that their feelings or situations will remain static and unchanging. Life is dynamic, we grow, experience great pain, and things often change more than we ever expect they could. sometimes, things just don't work out, no matter how hard we try.
The key is to learn from the pain, happiness, and change we experience, not fear it. Sure, it's easier to stomp one's foot, and be the good little stampatist that covers their eyes and ears, and refuses to admit that life sometimes hands you a big load of crud you can't always deal with in your current relationship. Fair? Certainly not, but nature and life usually never are.
Change is absolutely the only thing in life you can depend on.
I'm not quite sure what you want from me. Unless it would be my complete agreement on every topic that you sex gurus discuss. If that is what you want, then I'm sorry. Please tell me where in the agreement it said that I could not disagree with you or your associates.
I don't know what Smurf meant, but what she said was that everybody had different morals and although I thought they should be taught, many parents would disagree with me. She did not say the majority of parents wish for sex ed to be taught. Please take another look.
On your second point, here comes your "theory of relativity" again. Your goal is to banish the concept of right and wrong, to sear the conscience. You are teaching people how to fall for anything. First, I challenge you to use good science to prove that procreation is not the primary purpose of sexual function. I don't think you'll attempt to because it doesn’t seem that you're interested in good science. It seems you're only interested in propaganda and your agenda. That people can and do do what they want in relationships is not the point or the issue. If you would like a glimpse of one of the possibilities that could result from your brand of social experimentation, I recommend reading Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”. You can check it out here: http://www.novelguide.com/bravenewworld/index.html.
No one said that marriage guarantees anything. However, hard work, selflessness, and commitment does. I can guarantee that in the long run society as we know it will crumble and fail without marriage. In fact it has already started. I would guess that most "marriage ain't for me" people have been hurt either directly or indirectly in a marriage. The resulting attitude above would be the same as saying "My mom was killed in a car accident, so I'll never get in a car again." Like anything in life, you're only going to get out of a marriage what you put in.
The stats on STDs and accidental pregnancies in marriage are irrelevant also. Why? Because it misses the point. The point is doing marriage right. Only a very low percentage of STDs would show up as a result of an accident or freak occurrence. The rest would be due to illicit activity or a cheating partner. Again, loving commitment is needed. As for the pregnancies, an "unplanned" child has a much better chance at a bright future in a healthy, loving, committed marriage than as a child of a single parent. Check the stats on that, there are plenty of them out there.
How about that first wave of sexually transmitted disease in the US? Did you ever stop to think that if those soldiers were faithful to their wives in the first place it wouldn't have been an issue? Too bad Scarleteen wasn't around to advise condom use back then, huh? Then there wouldn't have been an epidemic. Who cares if they betrayed their mates, right?
Before you start slinging words and ideas around in a self-righteous manner, I respectfully request that you learn what it means to make a judgement, especially a moral value judgement. For example, from your use of the terminology, calling the one(s) who abused you (or anyone) a child molester would be “judging” them.
If giving me the boot makes you happy, then fine. I don't have the time or energy to sit here and butt heads with some people that think they're more educated and open minded. You have shown your true colors when you deleted my other post. You really are not interested in the health and well being of those that write in. You might as well be handing out clips, ammo, and pistols to kids while saying “Here’s how to load it, just be safe and don’t point it at anyone, now go have fun.” The results are as equally devastating on both the individuals involved as well as society as a whole. I'd be surprised if you have actually read this far. By the way, for what it's worth, most of my ideas are not based on "The gospel according to me." Goodbye and good luck.
The temporary thorn in your side.
We live in a time where everyone is demanding their rights while forgetting their responsibilities.
People will believe what they want to believe. I believe that seeking the truth is of the utmost importance whether it makes me happy or not. Note I'm not saying I know everything.
Now if standing for something or believing in something and sharing that makes me arrogant, then so be it. That would make our founding fathers some of the most arrogant S.O.B.s that ever walked the face of the earth.
Again, simply review the guidelines if you are unclear what I am asking. And again, do remember that '"rights" and "wrongs" are arbitrary simply because our world, history and personalities are diverse. What is right, say, in a Baptist church community in North Carolina is a very different thing from what it "right" in an aboriginal tribe in New Zeland, a commune in Olema, California, a Tibetan monestary, or a farming family in Sicily.
Again, in most of what you are saying, you are working off of highly ethnocentric and heterosexist ideas and realities in the first place, many of which are only applicable to the groups you discuss, if at all.
Opposite-sex marriages have gone as they have for a very long time, namely, since our global population and technology became such that the nearest person was closer than 10 miles away. If everyone in your mind is doing them 'wrong," then they've been doing them 'wrong" far longer than they have been doing them "right," and yet again, a more holistic view really makes a big difference.
Bear in mind that all of our volunteers have the capability to delete posts, and they do so in the way the guidelines dictate. if you have not followed the guidelines, the stated consequences will follow. A post being deleted for the apporpriate reasons is no one's fault but your own. if you feel a post you made was inappropriately deleted, you should contact us via e-mail and we will certainly look into it.
Regarding your feeling about the "results" of this sort of sex education, I'd suggest -- yet again -- that you educate yourself on what they actually have been before you claim what they are, since your viewpoint stands quite counter to what studies over the last 30 years have shown numerous times.
In the meantime, as stated before, the guidelines which apply to every user here will continue to be applied to you if you continue to post.
However, if you were/are just here to "butt heads," I suggest you be gracious and take it elsewhere, as this forum is not the place for flame wars or acrimony for the sake of having something to do. The forum exists to offer support to the site, and if you find our approach distasteful or you disagree with it, that should be addressed via email, not on the boards. They are not a personal soapbox.
Hmmm.......... I read that entire post. Some interesting points there. Well Scarleteen does not believe in an absence of morals. It jsut believes that many different moral systems (though not all, see Taliban thread) should be allowed and encouraged. Now whether people are taught about sex or not, they will do it, unless you were in a fundamentalist state where it was drilled into people that sex was bad. Im sure you are not advocating that. So that leaves us with the half hearted sex ed now, where the message is "wait." Or you have a system where people are informed exactly what it all is, and how it can be done safely. You also warn people to the risks like this site does, and if you dont patronise people (the "we know best approach") then kids might actually listen and decide to wait themselves because they have been given the facts.
On the scientific front of sex only being about reproduction: this is a very complicated area. However, sex can be part of building a relationship as well as reproduction. Otherwise, how do you explain how parts of the body are sensitive to sexual stimulus but are not a part of the reproductive system!
People will believe either what they want to or what they've been programmed to. There are some situations in which I feel obligated to share what I've learned to be true. Are they true because I think they are? No. Does anyone have to agree? No. Am I beyond making mistakes? No. I do however feel that people are obligated to seriously consider both sides of serious discourse. Test what is said. If nothing rings true, then discard it. We were given a conscience for a reason, but too often people want to kill their conscience as a way of dealing with "bad" feelings.
Also, some things are better than others. All things (ideas, methods, etc.) are NOT equal whether we like it or not. That's life. It's not always easy to determine which is best, sometimes it doesn't matter. But sometimes it is of utmost importance.
About the reproduction thing, I've never and will never say that reproduction is the only purpose for sex. It's quite obvious that there is more to it than that.
I'm not here to "butt heads" even though that has happened. I'm here because I'm curious, I'm interested in what other people think, and I'm concerned about the present and the future of our world. I've responded because I've been critized publicly so I feel I have the right to defend myself publicly. I'm not interested in soapboxes, I'm interested in dialog.
About right and wrong. What does longevity of a certain act, belief, etc. have to do with it? Murder has been around since the beginning of time. Does that mean it should be tolerated? Do I have the "right" to say it's wrong? You may ask the question, "Who has the right to tell me what is right and what is wrong?" What makes something right anyway? Good questions, but I'll keep my answers to myself here.
I will send you an e-mail if/when I find the time. Until then take care.
[This message has been edited by beenthere (edited 06-01-2001).]
"Before you start slinging words and ideas around in a self-righteous manner, I respectfully request that you learn what it means to make a judgement, especially a moral value judgement. For example, from your use of the terminology, calling the one(s) who abused you (or anyone) a child molester would be “judging” them."
Call me crazy, but I don't think Miz S. mentioned anything about the blanket term 'judging people'. I think she pointed out that on these boards, we appreciate that people don't make _moral value judgements_. Say, calling women who have more than one sex partner 'sluts', or referring to homosexuals as 'perverts and degenerates'. Unfortunately for your exceedingly 'moral' stance, Scarleteen is quite tolerant of a wide range of moral ground, from sexual orientation to 'deviant' behaviour to being adamnantly pro-choice. That may seem iffy to you, and you don't have to agree with it, but, unfortunately, if you're going to put your precious time and effort into posting here, you're going to have to tolerate the idea that other people may not follow your moral code.
------------------ Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. ( Tr. "I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head." )
"It's crazy to see people jumping through all of these hoops to avoid not only the primary function of sexual relationships which is reproduction, (By the way, for those who might think that reproduction is not the primary function, then unplanned pregnancy wouldn't be an issue.)"
"About the reproduction thing, I've never and will never say that reproduction is the only purpose for sex. It's quite obvious that there is more to it than that."
OK maybe not a perfect contradiction. But surely you have just damaged your own argument. Sex is not just about reproduction, it is also a social activity. Therefore, people need education on how to do this social activity so it is not dangerous.
Personally i think that comprehensive sex ed need to be taught more, and abstience only sex ed classes aint helping. See i went to a roman catholic school and i was taught abstience only sex ed. It confused me and i didnt learn anything except i was bad if i engaged in sexual activity and i'm good if i saved myself for marriage. There were no charts of the outer gentilia (just the inner reproductive organs)The spoke of std's but not about protection. So from my experience and almost every other girl that went to a ny state private school, it wasnt pretty. I dont want to see girls not learn about how their bodies work or how to protect themselves from disease and preganancy. Does sex ed equal more sex? No.. Sex ed equals more protected sex.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I wish we had sex ed. in school. My school only talks about reproduction. My parents have never talked to my sisters or me about sex. They just tell us it is strictly forbidden to have any kind of sexual relations out of wedlock, but I don't believe that. Whenever I try to talk to my mom about birth control, she just acts as if it's nothing to talk about. She said I know you're not sexually active now. But just b/c i'm not now doesn't mean I won't be in the future. I want to start preparing myself, as well as my body, for my future choices. When I have children, I will be open to them about all discussions, b/c being raised the way i am right now, I have learned nothing about sex from my parents. I gained most of my knowledge by reading "Changing Bodies, Changing Lives", and when my mom found out I had the book, she got mad at me and I got into trouble. All I was trying to do was learn... I don't see what the problem is!
------------------ "I can't take anymore of this, I wanna come apart, or dig myself a little hole, inside your precious heart... 'cause it's always raining in my head... forget all the things I should have said..." -Epiphany (Staind)
That is exactly what bothers me about people who take religion too far. You can teach your children what you believe - even to the point of brainwashing. Fine...I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but fine.
But refusing them the right to look elsewhere is just pathetic, in my opinion. Teaching is one thing, forcing your beliefs on someone else is another.
If Christianity is so right, why do some people need to force it on others? *Sigh*
------------------ Pugs: nature's bite-sized, tasty little treats. I'll have teriyaki on mine!
I did grades k-8 at a private school(non-religious, it was for gifted kids) and we never had a sex-ed class...and in high-school, we don't either, unless you want to take the parenting and child development class, which I did (as a junior), only because I wanted to be with my best friend, who was taking it. OMG, it opened my eyes so much...even though it was about children, we spent an entire month of a one semester class devoted to learning about different types of birth control...now most of the other girls, and the one guy in that class were constantly complaining about this, but I was really excited to actually be able to learn about this...of course my parents had explained what sex was, but I wasn't aware of all the different types of birth control and protection out there...now, as a sr. in HS< I still am a virgin, and am not in a relationship that involes any kinda of sexual contact at the moment, yet I feel that when I am in the postition to institute sex, I am prepared to be protected, thanks to that class. Shanna
------------------ "Don't tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the moon!"
Posts: 28 | From: Colorado Springs, CO USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
A new study in the American Journal of Public Health basically confirms the notion that Miz S. gets to right off the bat, here: that "concerns that sex ed encourages kids to have sex are 'misplaced'". However, this particular study also comes to some conclusions that we haven't seen so much, before:
-There is "no association between state-mandated sex education in the public schools and the rate of sexual activity or contraceptive use among teen girls"
-"The cost of abortion was not related to girls' sexual behavior"
-Girls in wealthier areas tend to have safer sex, and less sex.
-And, while the study says that government-initiated sex education doesn't encourage sex, it also does nothing to increase safer sex practices, or to discourage sex altogether.
Basically, the gist of the study's findings is that government-mandated sex ed doesn't do any good or bad, and that girls' surroundings do a lot more in terms of shaping their sexual practices.
------------------ "Frank, get back to work! And if the acid burns you, well, good!" -Ms. Gusto, Grade 11 physical geography class
[This message has been edited by Dzuunmod (edited 11-07-2002).]
Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.