h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4136177 (audio)

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=16101 (article)

The Texas Board of Education has approved new health textbooks to be used beginning next fall. In the chapter which covers contraception, the only means of contraception that is covered is abstinence. There are no mentions of any other means of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. The board defends its decision to adopt these books by stating that the teachers' editions of these books does include more complete information, but the decision to include that information in the curriculum is up to the individual school boards and the teachers.

This leaves the door wide open for Texas teenagers to obtain a wealth of misinformation from a variety of unreliable sources. But the Board insists that instructing only on abstinence is truly in the best interests of the students. (Because not knowing something exists means it can't happen to you, right?)

How can it possibly be in anyone's best interests to provide incomplete information? How much information should the schools make available to students? From a parental point of view, how much information do you expect children to receive? How much information is appropriate? From a student point of view, how much information is expected? If this information doesn't come through curriculum, what would be the next source of information?

Hang on, am still trying to get my head round this one. Nope, sorry, does not compute.

Do they really think that everyone will abide by the abstinence idea - and even if in the perfect state of Texas they all do - the kids surely need to know about the methods of preventing disease, let alone contraception. You can be informed but still not take up the option of using stuff. The scary part is not being informed in the first place. They need to know what can happen to their own bodies.

Surely this would mean more teenage pregnancies in the long run? And STDs?

PS: The above opinion of mine has nothing to do with being for or against sex outside marriage and everything to do with kids being well-informed individuals.

Jules

. . . and again . . .

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/11/news/fortune500/savingpvt_ryan/index.htm?cnn=yes

(oh well. It's not my country. )

I think being a liberal minded person im inclined to align with the general thrust of your post but I have to draw some attention to some bits.

This leaves the door wide open for Texas teenagers to obtain a wealth of misinformation from a variety of unreliable sources.

No matter how good the teaching is people will always get and pass around unreliable information, note how many people believe in ghosts, what a bloke down the pub told them or even Fox news


But the Board insists that instructing only on abstinence is truly in the best interests of the students. (Because not knowing something exists means it can't happen to you, right?)

Anyone with access to mainstream TV will know in general terms what sex is, OK its not a well rounded or balanced source of information but Id doubt that there are few people who having had contact with any of the popular mass mediums who want know something about sex. So its not accurate to say that this is the way the Texan Ed. Board is going. What is more likely is that they feel that discussing less effective methods of contraception is a bad thing to do. Whereas abstinence is the best protection against STIs and preganacy I know of. Ive only heard of one case of pregnacy in a virgin and I dont really believe that one.

How can it possibly be in anyone's best interests to provide incomplete information? How much information should the schools make available to students?

I dont know how you are using the word incomplete there? In the next sentence you ask how far we should go, well *ALL* the way and *EVERYWHERE* if we are gong to aim for completeness. Every sexual practice and how to do it safely, but where will that leave time for anything else in the curriculum?

I and I dont think you think that that's the way the curriculum should go. What people need to know varies widely and unbiased expert information should be easily and freely available to suit all needs. This is where parents come in. They should think, Do I want to be a grandparent soon? - Do I want my child to catch a potentially life threatening disease? What can I do to help my child's knowledge be better than that of mine or my frends at a similar stage of social developement.

Parents need to be educated about the truth regarding the frequency of teenage sexual activity and made aware that a little by little approach starting with facts about men women and babies is better than stories about birds and bees.

Not all parents will get it right but turning schools into a moral abttle ground about what is and isnt taught isnt the answer. Other agancies are better paced to give people the real deal about subjects that come up in their lives. Whats really sad is that its not just Texan schools the moral majority in the US is busy trying to cut aid to schemes that educate people about sex and family planning the world over.

one love

I can't help but think of Victorian times, when (I once read, but can't find the book) there were more prostitutes in London than there are now (despite their being fewer people overall - 1 million to today's 6 million), STDs were endemic, along with congenital deformities in babies whose parents were infected, and the main causes of hospitalisation in the Armed Forces, even during wars, were 'social diseases' and dysentry. There was also some shocking statistic about the number of teenage girls who died after trying to procure an abortion. In some poorer parts of London teenage unmarried pregnancies were more frequent than they are today, and there were many many more deaths of mother, or baby, or both in childbirth. In richer sections of society, we cannot find accurate statistics because girls were often sent abroad 'for their health', and TB was thought to be sexually transmitted for a while, possibly because all these young women going abroad 'for TB' were also pregnant... All this at a time in history considered to be far more 'moral' than this one.

Ignorance = pregnancy and STDs. Perhaps the Texan government has some weird obscure reason for WANTING all its teenagers to be syphillis-raddled crab-infested multiple parents by the age of 18...

A footnote about Agapanthus' information: "The Worm in the Bud" by Ronald Pearsall is the handiest overview of the subject. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0750933356/qid=1100193504/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/103-0755038-4301469?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Pearsall has made something of a career our of documenting the seedy underbelly of British Victorian and Edwardian society.

Shock! Horror! Lock up your daughters! War movie contains graphic violence!

HELLO! Its about WAR!

Shock! Horror! News article contains bad grammar! (WSOC-TV said it made its decision to withdraw "Saving Private Ryan" amid the war in Iraq and concerns about FCC penalties).

Regarding the sex education.... Everyone knows you can't get pregnant or get an STD if you block your ears and cover your eyes.

Honestly, at what point are their children to learn the facts of life? If you grow up ignorant of the facts, even if you abstain until your wedding night, you are going to remain ignorant. Ignorant parents are going to pass along false and dangerous information to their children.

Back when my father was at MIT, he was asked by the Dean to take a young lady who was visiting with them out for the evening. Two days later, he was called before the Dean to 'splain himself. He had, apparently "behaved improplerly" and the girl was now "in trouble" (how she would know two days later, I don't know).

It appeared that she was under the misapprehension that one could get pregnant from kissing, in this case a chaste peck on the cheek.

Even with the best sex education, I have heard girls and boys stating that:

One can't get pregnant if you do "it" standing up.
You can't get pregnant the first time.
Male sperm comes from the left testicle and female from the right one.
"Withdrawal" is "safe sex".
Boys can know that the are sterile.

All that will result is more and more "God fearing" kids are going to get pregnant and contract HIV/AIDS and other STDs.

Them's the facts of life.

Blicky, I'll respond to your comments, as they provided the most fodder for discussion.

>>No matter how good the teaching is people will always get and pass around unreliable information...
--Yes, but what will they have to compare it to? A boy trying to get lucky tells his girlfriend that it's impossible for her to get pregnant if he pulls out; with no other information what reason does she have to distrust him? One the answer is that it's the parents' responsibility to provide this information, but as unrealistic as it is to assume teenagers will remain abstinent because they're told to, it's equally unrealistic to assume all parents will tell their children everything they need to know about sex, or give them the resources they need to find out on their own.

>>Anyone with access to mainstream TV will know in general terms what sex is...
--Of course. But this isn't about what sex is, it's about preventing all of the terrible things that can happen as a result. Abstinence is, of course, the best possible prevention. But it isn't the only one, and chances are (especially in TX, a state with one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country) that information on abstinence alone isn't going to be adequate enough to prevent these things from happening.
*It should be noted that I don't have the numbers on the teen pregnancy rates in Texas, it was part of the feature on NPR, but I suspect they're easy enough to look up.*
You may have only heard of one pregnant virgin, and whether you believe the story or not, in theory it is possible for a woman to become pregnant without experiencing penetration. I haven't heard of this happening either, but that doesn't make it impossible.

>>*ALL* the way and *EVERYWHERE*...
--Well, yes, of course you realised that's not what I meant.
But then "They should think, Do I want to be a grandparent soon?"... yes, they should; but it is far more likely that they won't. Remember, this isn't just you and me we're talking about. I would wager that a fair percentage of parents feel their kids are too young for this kind of information, that with knowledge comes power, and in turn that with this particular knowledge comes the power to go out and try it for themselves, that their kids are too smart to go out and do something stupid like having sex, that whatever the kids are learning in school on the subject should be adequate enough.

>>Parents need to be educated about the truth regarding the frequency of teenage sexual activity...
--How many of them do you think are? Especially among those parents who were virtuous enough to wait for their own wedding nights?


I understand that there are a lot of parents who feel that no one else has the right to talk to their children about sex. I also understand that this is something many teens need access to accurate information about. There isn't a perfect solution.

Well, here I am going to stick my neck out, and say that teaching abstinence isn't such a bad thing at all! If parents are doing their job, they'll teach their children what they need to know about contraception, and it is better for children (defined as anyone still at school) to be abstinent - for emotional reasons as much as anything else! (I have a teenage son, and I can see that boys in their teens are as emotinally vulnerable as girls - and while he's doing end-of-year exams, that's all he should have to be worrying about right now.) Time enough for worrying about sex, pregnancy and the rest when he's got the time.)

The fact is that where real sex education is banned in the schools, you can bet that many parents won't teach their children what they need to know.

Many parents don't know the facts themselves.

When sex education isn't taught in the schools and a majority of parents can't or won't teach their children, the very children who need the information the most, aren't going to get it, or they are going to learn like our parents did, from friends who don't know any more than they do.

The fact, too, is that parents who don't want their children to receive sex education can opt their children out. Parents who do want their children to get it don't have any choice.

These days, sex education is more than just learning the birds and the bees. Children learn about healthy relationships, parenting, hygene, biology, and much more.

Unfortunately, just around the corner is banning the teaching of science that includes evolution.

It's back to the dark ages in the US of A....

Teaching abstinence is all well and good, but frankly witholding information on such an important choice is not.

I doubt it'll even make any more teenagers actually abstain. Who listened when their teachers told them what they should be doing anyway?

I would guess that most kids don't hear anything from their parents on the subject.

"Increase in teenage pregnancies"

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/news/0,8363,1349322,00.html

"The government's programme to cut the rate of teenage pregnancy has faltered, according to official figures yesterday showing an increase in conceptions in England among girls under 18."


Well, at least there *is* a government programme that is trying to educate people. And even with that there has been an increase in teenage pregnancies.

Della, I don't see how one can *teach* abstinence and I especially don't see how it would be effective with about 99% of teenagers. I think a part of the problem is that most parents and educators forget what it was like to be a teenager and often over- or under-estimate them.


az

Just wondering what a class being *taught* abstinence would consist of. How would they do practicals - have everyone sit on their hands?




az

I remember watching some movie about girls in a Catholic school. The girls were invited to a dance with the local Catholic boy's school. They were required to bring telephone books with them in case they had to sit on the boys' laps when they were being driven home.

*Muddy waves to az before heading off to bed......

Buenas noches, Mudhooks.

az
*downing second cup of before racing off to work . . .*

<>

I think that "teaching abstinence," could be as simple as reaffirming the right of teens who don't wish to participate, to stand up for themselves! I think you're possibly very wrong about 99% of teens being the randy ones - from what I remember of being a teen, many girls who weren't in the slightest bit interested, were subjected to heavy peer pressure. The non-availability of the pill didn't mean these girls got pregnant - they didn't. All it meant was that they had the perfect "excuse" to say no, without the risk of hurting or alienating the boy. (The same could apply to boys - fear of pregnancy was a powerful deterrent.) There weren't galloping rates of disease, either! This wasn't so long ago!
A year or so later, when these teens had left school, and could get "the pill," or condoms or whatever without fear of school authorities or parents knowing, the pressure especially on academic nerdy kids, was relentless. "What's wrong with ya, frigid or something?" was a frequent response to a "no". Fear of hurting a "partner" is a frequent trap. How many girls end up with a set of bedpost notches they never wanted because "I might get pregnant" is no longer available as a tactful way of refusal?
Girls (and boys as well) need society to affirm their right to say no if they wish. What do they see on TV and film all the time? People in their teens to their forties having one-nighters all over the show, moving in together on a whim, fighting, splitting up and moving on. The emotional turmoil is something each person keeps to herself, thinking "well, no one else seems to care the way I do." The sexually non-active learn to feel like freaks.
BTW, don't read more into this than there is. I am not talking (wholly) about myself...

It does all sound a bit personal...

Anyway everyone seems to be missing the point a bit. Sex is fun and something to be enjoyed. All this chat about pressure and abstinance is really puritan and makes you all sound like old gits. Learning about sex in my mid teens was one of the most enjoyable times of my life, you made mistakes, and sure as hell didn't always get it right, but it was exciting and new and fun. I think no matter what you all try and do to encourage abstinance it won't work. All the statistics seem to back this up. I never had sex without a condom untill I was married, regardless if the girl was on the pill or not. This was because we were educated. I got the chance to experiance all this sensably, well it wasn't always sensible but it was always safe. No pregnancies, no STDs. I pity those that get deprived of this.

Oh, if all you old timers can stretch your minds back far enough. You probably won't overestimate teenagers, but by the way you all talk you certainly do under estimate them.

Bubba-fretts, I don't know how old you think I am (for one) but I am surprised that you didn't notice that my views don't mesh with most others here!
<< never had sex without a condom untill I was married, regardless if the girl was on the pill or not. This was because we were educated. I got the chance to experiance all this sensably, well it wasn't always sensible but it was always safe. No pregnancies, no STDs. I pity those that get deprived of this.>>
I think you kind of missed the point of my post, at least. What about the emotional fall out, the relationship issues? People are more than just meat, they have feelings and minds.
I am not a teenager any more, but I *have* a teenager.

IMO we already teach abstinance
Nobody, not even liberals like me, suggests that 13 year olds should be encouraged to have sex
I just feel it would be wise to recognise that some teenagers will and to give them the information to make better informed choices