Angie PM'd you :)

Drina I used the age 21 because that is the age when ALL people are considered adults legally...by law, able to decide all things on their own....I don't feel any school has the right to determine when a child is "ready" for sex....some folks are never mature enough. The point I was trying to make was that I believe schools should teach the health issues and medical issues concerning sexual intercourse. I don't feel any school should teach moral issues on it...because...frankly if they did...they would teach it wrong...this is coming from a husband and father of public school teachers!

I feel that schools need to teach because we have failed as parents to do so.

And of course I can't say when each individual is mature enough to have sex...but...and I could be wrong here...I think that they should know what the consequences are, as in having a BABY and be able to take care of that BABY all by their selves without their MOMMY and DADDY to help them....which is NOT what is happening in our world today...

being mature doesn't mean that you know how to perform the act...

being mature means that you know when to NOT PERFORM THE ACT!

AMY you say that teen agers should not feel like sex is dirty or wrong...and it shouldn't be...when the time is right. You sound like you wished you were too young...that you wished you would have waited.....

And AGAIN I TELL YOU....I was STUPID!!!

I made a lot of mistakes in my past...

does that mean it's OK...nope!

Not really.

At age 18 you can sign a contract.
You can get married (in most states) w/out parental consent.
You can join the military w/out parental consent.
You can buy cigarettes.
You can drive a car on a full drivers license (rather than a permit).

Age 21 as the age of majority only applies to drinking.

.

Also gambling. Can't enter a casino or win the lottery until 21. At least here in Iowa.

I guess I was wrong when I said that 21 was the age when legally ALL people were considered adults....oh wait...I guess I was right...;)

I think expecting that anyone would wait until 21 to have sex is ... well ... a little blind.

I know one person who waited. I know many others who didn't ... and who were well below 18 as well.

.

PHOTOCHICK what I said is that I felt people shouldn't have sex until they were mature enough...I used 21 as an example for obvious reasons...legally adult in ALL cases.

I know that there are plenty of kids out there earning their own way...living without mom and dads $$$...holding down secure jobs....that are under 21....right....plenty of them....

all ready to take on the responsibility of a child if the BALLOON BREAKS...right...

I could be wrong...I often am...but to tell you the truth...most kids I see under 21 these days are not ready to raise a family...

could just be WHERE I LIVE...could be....

I think some of us are thinking of this abstinence thing differently. When I said abstinence should be included, I only meant that it needs to be pointed out that abstinence is the only 100% way to be safe. I do NOT think anyone in a school should be telling kids they HAVE to be abstinent until a certain age or until marriage or anything crazy like that. I DO think abstinence needs to basically be included as a basis for comparison, a baseline, the 100% safe method, the drawing board where we all start and have to individually decide where to go from there. Condoms are not 100% safe. "The pill" is not 100% safe (from pregnancy--0% safe against STDs). There is no such thing as 100% safe sex.

So, I stand firm that abstinence can be included in the teachings without having anything to do with morals, values, religion, age, etc. I don't agree that abstinence should be pushed as being what all kids should do because that's just not reality, but I think if you leave abstinence out completely, you're ignoring part of the lesson. I don't mean school should say abstinence is right ot the only way or whatever, but it does need to be mentioned. Yes, mentioned--not pushed or touted or taught exclusive of other information.

I'm not sure how else to word it. I hope someone gets my point :dizzy:

Teen pregnancy is of course a massive problem, and most high schoolers who get pregnant have to grow up really fast. That's one of the reasons why sexual health education is so important. Education prevents pregnancy. In my parents' home country, teen pregnancy is virtually unheard of. Although I'm not a gambler, I'm willing to bet it has a lot to do with the fact that sex is discussed very frankly in school and more generally in society. If only we would do that here...

I also think it's important to note that even if one is sexually active pregnancy is not inevitable. A major reason why contraceptives fail so many people is because they don't know how to properly use them. This is another example of how withholding information hurts people. I'm all for making it known that abstinence prevents pregnancy, but I don't think that "teaching" it will make an ounce of difference outside the context of comprehensive sex ed.

While I can now see the logic behind the 21 thing, I do think it's an arbitrary age. You have to be 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink, 25 to rent a car, 35 to be president. Which of these is most closely related to sexual maturity? I don't think any of them are.

One of the pediatricians I work for had a 11-12 year old who kept coming in for nausea and vomiting...he asked her about being pregnant and she vehemently denied it...after the symptoms went on for long enough he went ahead and ordered a pg test and it was +. She appeared completely shocked and told him that was impossible since she'd never performed OS.:?: Somehow she just thought (maybe some creep told her this): sperm into stomach = baby.:(

And as far as this discussion goes, as far as what should be taught in public school, I see eye to eye with Jillybean. Maybe I'm out of the loop now (been out of school for years and only have little ones), but I was surprised to hear that only abstinence is being taught in your school Layri. Wow. That seems shortsighted.

I used 21 for my figure so that IF someone had sex...they were legally responsible for the outcome!

not the school....to provide rooms for their kids....and classes to accomodate the mothers...

not the parents of the mothers and fathers....

not my tax dollars!! to feed their children because they COULD HAVE SEX!

For crying out loud...I COULD HAVE SEX at about 13....


That sure didn't make it right!

EZMONEY, I haven't read any posts here that would suggest that teachers should actively promote teenage sexual behavior, only that students have the right to information. Education reduces teen pregnancy --we know that.

I guess I'm just not sure what you mean by "teaching" abstinence. If a student is taught about sex, how human bodies mature, how one becomes pregnant, how to avoid pregnancy, etc., then abstinence is naturally incorporated into the discussion. But that's different than preaching abstinence, which I personally believe is the job of families and congregations, not public school teachers.

How do you believe abstinence should be taught, specifically?

Ditto this.

Also ... EZ ... I must admit that I have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to your posts in this thread. All the bolding and caps and everything gives the impression that I'm being preached to - or yelled at.

It's hard for me to see past the delivery method here, to get to the message.

.

I absolutely agree. I mean, it would be absurd to try to teach safe sex practices without mentioning abstinence. It's equally useless to try to teach abstinence without mentioning any other methods of preventing pregnancy/STDs, etc.

There is a tendency among teenagers (and people in general, I think) to want to rebel. I'm going to do this just because you said I shouldn't. We have the worst problems with young people binge drinking in this country in part because we tell them they can't drink until they are 21. You want to tell me I can't drink? I'm going to drink until I black out.

Abstinence-only sex ed might convince some kids, but it sure as **** won't convince them all. Parents can teach their kids whatever they want about sex. Abstinence only? Fine. But facts, not opinions, are the responsibility of our public schools.

On a different note, sex ed of either variety isn't doing anybody any good if it's being taught by someone who a) doesn't know what they are talking about, and/or b) is too awkward to get the facts across. Sex ed classes at both my middle school and high school were utterly useless. It was the responsibility of the 6th grade science teachers to teach "Growing and Changing." As if the subject isn't awkward enough for middle school kids without that creepy title. I learned NOTHING in that class. It was all about, like, let's watch this after school special from the 80s about periods! And then in high school, all phys ed teachers had to teach freshman "Sexuality and Health." Again, not helpful. This time, the teacher would avoid actually having to talk about the subject by having us watch episodes of ridiculous TV shows, like Party of Five. I learned all about the pros and cons of abortion from Jennifer Love Hewitt. Please. ANYWAY, as I ramble on forever, I think sex ed is important, but only if it's taught in an informative way. Otherwise, you're just wasting my time.

Here in Holland kids are taught by parents AND the school about abstinence (being the only foolproof way of not getting pregnant) and extensively about STD's, the use of condoms, etc. It's VERY out in the open here. Needless to say, we have an extremely low teen-pregnancy rate.

We even have shows on prime-time television about love, relationships and sex - all directed at young people.

I think it's GREAT. My parents told me NOTHING. I had to ask my mother and even then she seemed embarrassed about it and the subject was quickly changed. This from a woman who got pregnant at 18, even though she was using the sponge method, after only knowing my dad for about 6 weeks (my parents split up when I was 8 by the way).