Abstinance only education - Page 3

[AmieV]

That is ABSURD. I too have never heard of a permission slip that you had to sign to opt your kid OUT of something. Is this a public school??? Makes me think I may as well choose a Catholic school for the academics if the bunk sex information is basically the same in secular school settings.

and someone else asked if this is the only sex ed kids are getting. For a lot of them, yes. The only federally funded sex ed money is for abstinence education right now. So schools trying to scrimp and save on their budgets will opt to use this only since it's free. And do you think the government doesn't realize that's exactly what will happen?

I'm so sick of conservative crap like this. Quit shoving your agenda on our impressionable youth.

[mommyshine]

Wow - I wonder what will be taught in public schools in ten years. A good thread to read. I completely agree with momTo4under5 about why the heck are public schools teaching morality or character - and I truely believe this is realted - schools should not be feeding our kids either. Stick to academics!!!!

I just looked at the website - OMG!!! I can only guess what the curriculum is like. Have you sent your letter yet? I'd be mad, oh wait, I am... about the permission NOT to attend issue - and - if that website is any indication (!) about the teaching materials. I am so glad I have read this thread... I am wondering, as I said above, what I will be in for in the future. Will it be any better? Can it possibly be any worse?

[ChristaN]

Looking at the teacher order forms, it appears that a school/organization can order two versions of the same curricula -- one religious and one not. From the descriptions, it sounds like the same curricula either way, but the religious one contains scripture references to back up the info whereas the 'secular' version just omits the scripture references. That doesn't make it secular, IMO.

[lolar2]

AniT, you might have more luck if you also contact the school board. (Or it might not help, but it's worth a shot.)

[RomanGoddess]

I have not read all the posts in this thread. I just wanted to say that I would not have a problem sending my daughter to an Abstinence only class because in my opinion, the bulk of sex education and info about responsible sex should be taught at home by the parents of the child. It is up to the parents to instill appropriate values in this area. If the school wants to say to my daughter, "Oh yeah, and the best way to avoid getting pregnant or getting any STD is to abstain", that's fine by me. I will tell her about the rest at home.

[aniT]

Originally Posted by lolar2

AniT, you might have more luck if you also contact the school board. (Or it might not help, but it's worth a shot.)

I believe this was approved by the school board. If you see my thread about "school uniforms" you will note that the school board wants girls to wear pants or culottes for uniforms.

I talked to a friend of mine who grew up in this town and moved to a different town to get her kids away from this school district. She said the school board member that is promoting the uniforms was among other things I cannot say here an extremely religious man who would have no problem promoting his agenda on this kids. She suggested I call the ACLA because this company seems way to religious to be publishing curriculum for public schools.

I was going to call another friend of mine who was active with the school board at one point to get her opinion.

[saraann]

If she wants to go let her, but just be sure to talk to her at home about what she's learning and you can supplement the info on STD"s, contraception and just talk to her about how you feel about things too. Ultimately, you will be the one who influences her attitudes about sex, not the school.

[Gendenwitha]

Originally Posted by cmlp

I have not read all the posts in this thread. I just wanted to say that I would not have a problem sending my daughter to an Abstinence only class because in my opinion, the bulk of sex education and info about responsible sex should be taught at home by the parents of the child. It is up to the parents to instill appropriate values in this area. If the school wants to say to my daughter, "Oh yeah, and the best way to avoid getting pregnant or getting any STD is to abstain", that's fine by me. I will tell her about the rest at home.

You wouldn't say parents should teach about heart disease at home. They're not qualified. The reproductive system is part of health SCIENCE. I'm not up on the latest birth control methods, nor am I qualified to explain how they work.
I really don't see what the big deal is, even if they wait until marriage this is information they will need after they are married. (Even STD information, even if they are faithful, what if their spouse isn't? Or take it as examples of why they should stay faithful to their spouse.)

My 26yo SIL told me she got pregnant because her husband didn't pull out in time. I shudder to think what sort of sex ed she would give her children. You know how many adults I have heard similar misinformation from?

I agree with you that the values should be taught at home, but in agreeing I come to the exact opposite conclusion--Abstinence could be taught as one form of birth control, but encouraging it is espousing a value that I should be teaching (or not teaching) as I choose, it should not be the choice of the school board.

[simplemama]

Originally Posted by aniT

Because having unprotected sex leads to unplanned/unwanted pregnancy and STDs. [end quote]

pregnancy is better than some of those side affects from chemical contraceptions and intrauterine birth control devices.
STDs are a major problem that is for sure! They are no fun and have become a real health issue...in fact aside from the common cold and flu, STDs are the most common health ailment seen in doctor's offices every year. It just seems to me, from a health standpoint, that teaching about condoms and birth control and 'safe sex' does not seem to be helping this 'epidemic' of STD's and unplanned pregnancies.
Kids deserve to know that sex IS a big deal (quite great actually) and they deserve to know about the facts...I know some of the facts are scary and so can seem like 'scare tactics' but the fact is that sex is great but there are always very REAL effects that come with it...some great and some very scary ones.

What better way to protect the children you have than by not having more then you can support/care for.[/QUOTE]

there are many SCIENTIFIC (not just religious) methods out there that are both effective and natural. In fact, the scientific method of natural family planning we use is 99% effective and 100% safe when followed correctly, the pill is 99% (sometimes less according to different studies) effective and definitely not 100% safe again when used/taken correctly. I also like the natural method as it has made me very informed about my own body and has made me excited to learn about how it works...I feel very empowered as a woman understanding myself and at the same time protecting myself from unwanted side effects or even being more attuned to my body so I can catch problems before they get worse...

[wasabi]

Originally Posted by simplemama

What better way to protect the children you have than by not having more then you can support/care for.

there are many SCIENTIFIC (not just religious) methods out there that are both effective and natural. In fact, the scientific method of natural family planning we use is 99% effective and 100% safe when followed correctly, the pill is 99% (sometimes less according to different studies) effective and definitely not 100% safe again when used/taken correctly. I also like the natural method as it has made me very informed about my own body and has made me excited to learn about how it works...I feel very empowered as a woman understanding myself and at the same time protecting myself from unwanted side effects or even being more attuned to my body so I can catch problems before they get worse...[/QUOTE]
Well I think many of the women here who are anti-circ and anti-vax etc are also in favor of family planning methods like LAM and NFP. I'm not sure why you seem to think that is not the case.

My abstinence only sex ed (received at home) resulted in two unplanned teen pregnancies in two years. Cheap and readily available birth control kept me protected for six years once I was out of my parents' house. No way would I want my daughters to receive abstinence only sex ed.

[aniT]

Originally Posted by dachshundqueen

SO - teach them what they need to know at home and let them know what's important to you, if you feel that this is wrong, you should've paid more attention to the permission slip as the school DID attempt to inform you.

I have a newborn in the house. Forgive me for being sleep deprived and misreading the permission slip. I still believe those reverse permission slips are crap. The permission slip also did not say they were buying material from a religious organization and it was going to be full of lies.

If your kid is hiding/throwing things away, then that is something you need to discuss with your kid and not give it as a reason why the school is deficient.

I never said MY kid was hiding/throwing things away. I said "I" did as a kid as did many many people that I know. That is why this type of permission slip is crap. Many times the parent never sees them.

I did talk to the principal the other day and she explained why they used this type of slip. Less record keeping. They only have to keep track of the students who aren't supposed to be in the class instead of all the ones that are.

BTW while another poster is citing that withdrawal is a bad NFP method, I know quite a few people who have had Yasmin chemical birth control "surprises". I don't use withdrawal but sympto-thermal NFP and have other friends who use NFP to prevent without unplanned pregnancies.

BC is a crap shoot... If you use it correctly you have a greater chance of it working, incorrectly and you have a greater chance of failure. It doesn't matter of you use NFP, condoms, or BC pills. There is always the risk of an accident.

I have never gotten pregnant on BC pills. I do however have one child who is the products of the "pull out method," and another who is the product of sheep skin condoms. (DH wanted to try something more natural.)

Also when I talked to the principal she was going to look into the fact that the book was teaching misinformation and go over with the teachers. However she didn't really believe it was teaching misinformation since "bolod banks are screening for HIV and your chances of getting HIV from blood is very small. She also believes that your chances of getting cervical cancer decreases the longer you wait to have sex."

And FTR, this is not being taught by a Science teacher but the PE teachers. :

[Gendenwitha]

Originally Posted by aniT

And FTR, this is not being taught by a Science teacher but the PE teachers. :

Please, please, tell me that these are real, college-educated teachers who's primary education in school was in the health sciences... trying REALLY hard here to give them the benefit of the doubt....

[simplemama]

[/QUOTE]Well I think many of the women here who are anti-circ and anti-vax etc are also in favor of family planning methods like LAM and NFP. I'm not sure why you seem to think that is not the case...My abstinence only sex ed (received at home) resulted in two unplanned teen pregnancies in two years. Cheap and readily available birth control kept me protected for six years once I was out of my parents' house. No way would I want my daughters to receive abstinence only sex ed.[/QUOTE]


I agree that most women that are mothers here on the board are very familiar with and happy with LAM or NFP...I just don't understand why it is ok to use dangerous drugs at any time, especially with our young and girls with growing and changing bodies.

Why do you think your education you received caused you to have these unplanned pregnancies?

I agree for the most part with other posters, this really should be something taught in the home.

Either way teaching our children that we would prefer them to abstain and yet also teaching them how to be protected seems to send a lot of mixed messages....

[Houdini]

Originally Posted by simplemama

Either way teaching our children that we would prefer them to abstain and yet also teaching them how to be protected seems to send a lot of mixed messages....

Interesting perspective. I always took the perspective of my child is not me. Though I would prefer they abstain, it doesn't mean they will agree with me. In the event that they choose a different path, I want them to be informed and prepared.

[aniT]

Originally Posted by simplemama

Either way teaching our children that we would prefer them to abstain and yet also teaching them how to be protected seems to send a lot of mixed messages....

FWIW I don't believe in premarital abstinence anyway. So the only thing I will be teaching my daughter is to wait for someone special. And to wait long enough to KNOW that someone is special. Then of course how to protect herself.

And I have NO idea how the PE teachers have been educated. But now that I think of it. My health teacher who taught sex Ed was the Varsity Foot Ball Coach.

[darkpear]

It's just not realistic to expect your kids to abstain until marriage. If you want to talk about what's natural, abstinence during a time in your life when you've hit sexual maturity and are being bombarded with hormones seems pretty darn unnatural to me. There's also the issue of STDs. NFP provides no protection whatsoever from those! My kids are small, but I'm going to make damn sure they know how to use a condom BEFORE they need to.

Abstinence-only education, aside from the religious bias and misinformation that commonly comes with it, amounts to putting kids' lives on the line for the sake of an ideal that very very few people live up to.

[menudo]

My last PE teacher (a femael FTR) is in jail now for a several year relationship with an underage student (female too if it matters). Yes, she fit the stereotype to a 'T' didn't she?

I guess she had her own take on the subject. but she did not teach this class when I went to that school.

Again, my school covered everything while stressing only abstinance was 100% effective. They did a decent job for a school.

[GooeyRN]

I do feel public schools should teach "something". That "something" being, normal anatomy and physiology. The basics about puberty, menstration, and procreation. Teach what outcomes could happen if teens have sex. Leave it at that. The rest is for the parents/church to teach.

Being a Catholic, and waiting until marriage at age 25 for sex, I like the abstinance only education. However, I am a realist. I know many people are not Catholic. Not everyone see's the value in waiting until marriage. Not everyone is pro-life. Not everyone cares that birth control pills can prevent a baby from implanting in his/her mothers womb.

So really, I don't see the point in teaching abstinance OR safe sex. Different people have different beliefs, so you are going to anger someone no matter what you teach. So I feel teaching just the basic anatomy and physiology would be best.

[nicolelynn]

Well I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but I think I may have a different perspective.

I am a Christian, and dh and I both were virgins when we married. We don't regret it one bit (our sex life is amazing). So we wholeheartedly agree in abstinence before marriage for Christians- and that should be taught in Christian homes and churches.

However, abstinence only sex ed in school simply does not work. In France where they are very open about sex children are taught ALL the options, abstinence AND birth control included...guess which country has a higher rate of teen pregnancies? The US. Legislating and forcing religious morality on teenagers is not going to lower our rate of teen pregnancies or STDs. Sex among teenagers is not going to go away so we might as well help them cover all their bases.

We're going to homeschool our children when we have them, but I would give my kids the choice of whether or not to attend. If they do end up attending, it would be a good opportunity to have a conversation with your child about what they learned, what they thought about it and then you can share your opinions on the matter.

[simplemama]

Sounds like most of us can agree that we would like the public schools/government to give parents a bit more control about the education on this particular subject.

My husband and I will raise our children as best we can, and yes it is possible they will not always follow as we would like, my 3yrold dd has already demonstrated this! : However, I can give them the correct information and show them how to avoid dangerous and harmful situations and from there they have the responsibility to make the decisions and live with the positive and or negative consequences of these actions. People don't just accidentally have sex and I beleive everyone can practice self-control...even with 'raging' hormones.

In response the the post about abstinence until marriage being only a religious thing: It is true, many religions, not just Christians, know the simple and true way is purity before and in marriage. However,

The government and federally-funded abstinence only programs are simply allowed to teach about this from a health perspective. It is not fair to give our kids education about how to be safe or to give them the expectation that they can go have sex and be protected from any type of health damage simply by sticking 'plastic' on themselves or making the girls chug that jagged little pill into their sensitive bodies.
Non-religious organizations, CDC/FDA, etc clearly agree that condoms do not always protect against disease/pregnancy (hense the reason for the new garadasil stuff for HPV) and the pill's information pamphlet only promises a chance to protect against pregnancy, not any diseases.

Either way, neither can protect against the emotional damage that could happen to someone who engages in the most incredible human act with a person before knowing this relationship is for life.