Schoolkids and prevention

[Maya]

In Northern countries there has been, for a long time, condoms avalable in the toalets, lavatories, bathrooms, littel boys/girls rooms... of many schools. Now they are thinking of getting free regretpills to scholchildren. Of course parents wont be notified if the child will ask for one. After all it is not any of their business....

Edited December 10, 2009 by Maya

[hordak]

In Northern countries there has been, for a long time, condoms avalable in the toilets of many schools. Now they are thinking of getting free regretpills to scholchildren. Of course parents wont be notified if the child will ask for one. After all it is not any of their business....

Condoms in toilets gross. (Just teasing you, but in English toilets are the receptacle themselves, bathrooms are the rooms the toilets are in, regardless of whether or not they actually have a bath. )

Birth control for teens is like firearms. It's best if they don't need to be used, because they aren't in a situation that warrants them, but it's better to have access to and knowledge of them, just in case.

However i disagree with the lack of notification, and giving out medications.

[Elphaba]

In Northern countries there has been, for a long time, condoms avalable in the toilets of many schools. Now they are thinking of getting free regretpills to scholchildren. Of course parents wont be notified if the child will ask for one. After all it is not any of their business....

What is a "regretpill"?

Elphaba

[Mahone]

What is a "regretpill"?

Elphaba

Morning after pill. Regretpill is a nickname for it, i.e. they regret doing it.

[Guest]

Birth control for teens is like firearms. It's best if they don't need to be used, because they aren't in a situation that warrants them, but it's better to have access to and knowledge of them, just in case.

I don't subscribe to this one...

My parenting style is... I tell you it is wrong. If you want to do it anyway, go ahead. I'm not gonna make it easy on you and I won't be shielding you from the consequence. And I will not bite my tongue to prevent myself from saying, "I told you so!".

Then, of course, someone always says, what if your kid gets AIDS... and they don't believe me when I say, too bad so sad. I will help him try to recover from it and give him all the support I can possibly give.

[pam]

Morning after pill. Regretpill is a nickname for it, i.e. they regret doing it.

I think it's kind of a funny name. I'm not sure they regret it but are just worried about the consequences of their actions. Herein lies "think before doing."

[hordak]

I don't subscribe to this one...

My parenting style is... I tell you it is wrong. If you want to do it anyway, go ahead. I'm not gonna make it easy on you and I won't be shielding you from the consequence. And I will not bite my tongue to prevent myself from saying, "I told you so!".

Then, of course, someone always says, what if your kid gets AIDS... and they don't believe me when I say, too bad so sad. I will help him try to recover from it and give him all the support I can possibly give.

Allowing children to learn from their mistakes is part of the parenting process/ growing up.

We all do it, it just varies by what we see as "acceptable consequence" Teenage sex with it's many risk is the equivalent of, running with scissors in the road, with a mask on that reduces vision, in untied shoelaces, while not wearing clean underwear. It's all those things mom warned us about wrapped into one.

I don't think teaching kids about birth control is shielding them anymore then pulling my tots back from the street. The consequences are to great to not do everything in my power to minimize the risk.

But to each their own.

[Maxel]

This is an infringement upon the rights of the parent to raise their child as they see fit. Moreover, it's irresponsible of those providing the children with these contraconceptives- it's a myth that children "will have sex anyway", and that (properly utilized) abstinence education doesn't work. Strong famlies based upon solid principles are the most effective means of lowering pregnancy and the spread of STD's among children and teenagers. The double-whammy of aggressively denying parents knowledge of their children's behavior and making it easier for children to have so-called 'risk-free' sex is seriously damaging to the children.

Just another example of the moral and logical degredation of society...

Edited December 10, 2009 by Maxel
Spelling

[Maxel]

I don't think teaching kids about birth control is shielding them anymore then pulling my tots back from the street. The consequences are to great to not do everything in my power to minimize the risk.

The issue isn't just teaching them about birth control- it's giving them access to birth control without parental consent or knowledge.

Moreover, it woud be foolish to sit your children down and tell them all the ways they could run into the street and still avoid being hit by a car ('Dodge really fast!'). That's the more accurate equivalent to teaching children about birth control. Pulling your child back from the street would be equivalent to taking all steps necessary to teach your child that sex before marriage is seriously damaging and morally wrong- including implementing rules to minimize temptation (such as no dating before 16, no sleep overs involving members of the opposite sex, etc.).

It should be noted that I'm not saying you teach your children to dodge cars in the street- only that your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

[hordak]

The issue isn't just teaching them about birth control- it's giving them access to birth control without parental consent or knowledge.

I agree from first post.

Hordak: However i disagree with the lack of notification, and giving out medications.

Moreover, it woud be foolish to sit your children down and tell them all the ways they could run into the street and still avoid being hit by a car ('Dodge really fast!'). That's the more accurate equivalent to teaching children about birth control. Pulling your child back from the street would be equivalent to taking all steps necessary to teach your child that sex before marriage is seriously damaging and morally wrong- including implementing rules to minimize temptation (such as no dating before 16, no sleep overs involving members of the opposite sex, etc.).

It should be noted that I'm not saying you teach your children to dodge cars in the street- only that your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

I see what your saying but...

Teaching kids about birth control is not "giving them permission" anymore then teaching kids the dangers of guns is. Giving them condoms is encouraging them to have sex as much as telling them to buckle up is encouraging them to drive dangerously.

And studies show Abstinence only programs don't work.

Advocates For Youth - Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact

[MarginOfError]

This is an infringement upon the rights of the parent to raise their child as they see fit.

But it wouldn't be a necessary infringement if kids weren't afraid their parents would freak if they brought it up at home. I'm not saying I agree with giving it out without parental consent, just that if parents were more open and educated about sexual issues, kids wouldn't need to find away around their parents. I see this issue as a problem with the quality of parenting with regards to sexual knowledge.

Moreover, it's irresponsible of those providing the children with these contraconceptives- it's a myth that children "will have sex anyway",

not entirely. The median age at which females first have sexual intercourse is between 14 and 15 years old. The median age for males is between 16 an 17 years. That means 50% of girls have had sex by age 15, and 50% of boys by age 17.

and that (properly utilized) abstinence education doesn't work.

Actually, it is a myth that abstinence education doesn't work. At least abstinence-only education doesn't work. The time-to-first-sex curves for teens who receive abstinence only education and those who receive some other sex education are so near identical that it is nearly impossible to distinguish one from the other. It had been demonstrated a few times now that teens that have sex do so independently of sex education.

Strong famlies based upon solid principles are the most effective means of lowering pregnancy and the spread of STD's among children and teenagers.

This goes unchallenged. While the median age of first sex for teens with no parent at home is about 16 years, the median age for those with a parent at home is 21 years. That means having a parent at home can delay a person's first sex by up to five years. This is a notably greater effect than abstinence education.

The double-whammy of aggressively denying parents knowledge of their children's behavior and making it easier for children to have so-called 'risk-free' sex is seriously damaging to the children.

Except that students who receive comprehensive sexual education and have access to free contraception have lower teen pregnancy rates and STD rates than their counter parts who receive abstinence only education do not have access to free contraception.

Just another example of the moral and logical degredation of society...

And the degradation starts with the parents. The only way to curb the trend of teen pregnancy, sexual activity, and STD's is for parents to be more open about sexual topics with their teens. There needs to open discussion and mutual understanding. Teenagers respond to their friends, and if there is a topic about which a teens do not feel like they can rely on the parents as friends, they will rely on the information and opinions of their teenage friends.

I can't stress this enough. It matters very little what is taught and what is available in the schools. What matters is what is taught at home.

Random statistical factoid: Somewhere between 88% and 97% of Americans have sex before they get married.

For the record, if you want to get a good idea of the trends surrounding social sexual issues, you should read the reports of the Guttmacher Institute. Their statistical methods are superb. Many of the conclusions presented in my comments are drawn from my own graduate research in statistics. I began by reading reports from the Guttmacher Institute which I initially thought were bogus. My intent in researching the topics was to debunk what I had read from Guttmacher. I was quite surprised to find through my own research that Guttmacher had nailed all of the correct conclusions.

[Vort]

Just teasing you, but in English toilets are the receptacle themselves, bathrooms are the rooms the toilets are in, regardless of whether or not they actually have a bath.

In America it is generally the case that "toilet" means "privy", but many other English-speaking areas, including England, use "toilet" to mean "lavatory". This usage is actually closer to the original French word toilette, "little cloth", the small towel or cloth on which one laid out one's grooming items. So her usage was correct, if nonstandard for Americans.

[Bini]

Kids don't need school to provide them with contraceptives, such as, condoms or the MA pill. Anyone can walk into a clinic and request either without parental consent or notification.

[Maxel]

I see what your saying but...

Teaching kids about birth control is not "giving them permission" anymore then teaching kids the dangers of guns is. Giving them condoms is encouraging them to have sex as much as telling them to buckle up is encouraging them to drive dangerously.

Another bad analogy. Condoms have one function: to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's during sexual activity. Seat belts also have one function: to keep passengers in motorized vehicles safe.

It's clear that sexual activity and driving in a car are two significantly different things. For one, the rules governing safe and responsible sexual activity are eternal and to be utilized only in the confines of marriage, and it aren't as integral to a child's life as transportation in a car. On the other hand, the rules governing safe and responsible driving are temporal and more vital for a child to know.

And studies show Abstinence only programs don't work.

Advocates For Youth - Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact

I should clarify what I meant. My usage of "(properly utilized)" was meant to imply that the education came first and foremost from the parents, in the home. In hindsight, what I said was horribly misleading, and I apologize.

I am aware of studies showing that school-based abstinence-only education doesn't work. That makes sense to me- schools aren't designed to instill basic moral values in children, that's the job of the home. If a child is reared in an unloving and undisciplined home, most of the time whatever morals are taught at school won't have a huge impact.

[Maxel]

But it wouldn't be a necessary infringement if kids weren't afraid their parents would freak if they brought it up at home. I'm not saying I agree with giving it out without parental consent, just that if parents were more open and educated about sexual issues, kids wouldn't need to find away around their parents. I see this issue as a problem with the quality of parenting with regards to sexual knowledge.

This then begs the question: who's role, if any, is it to pick up the pieces?

Certainly not the government's.

not entirely. The median age at which females first have sexual intercourse is between 14 and 15 years old. The median age for males is between 16 an 17 years. That means 50% of girls have had sex by age 15, and 50% of boys by age 17.

I would be interested for seeing the statistics for children 50-100 years ago, when the family was more widely recognized as the basic unit of society- and before moral relativism was far less pervasive. I'd hazard that this statistic varies widely depending on the importance placed on the family within any general society.

Again, this goes back to the question: if the parents fail in their duty, is it really the role of the government (or the school) to pick up the pieces?

This goes unchallenged. While the median age of first sex for teens with no parent at home is about 16 years, the median age for those with a parent at home is 21 years. That means having a parent at home can delay a person's first sex by up to five years. This is a notably greater effect than abstinence education.

So the health of the famliy unit has a far greater effect on a child's sexual activity than social sexual health instruction?

Except that students who receive comprehensive sexual education and have access to free contraception have lower teen pregnancy rates and STD rates than their counter parts who receive abstinence only education do not have access to free contraception.

Again, we have to ask ourselves if it's the proper role of the schools to offer this kind of education, and how we should measure 'success'.

I feel that the offering of free contraception (particularly without notifying the parent) is the beginning of a pernicious cycle, and symptomatic of a deeper philosophical problem on the part of the government and whoever else is behind it.

And the degradation starts with the parents.

Agreed, but when the government steps in and tries to take over the parents' jobs, things get even worse. There will always be parents that fail in their jobs, and there will always be people just waiting to jump in and shout "look at this sad, horrible injustice! We as a community need to step in, intervene on this child's behalf, and fix this problem!".

Some things are best handled on a family level.

The only way to curb the trend of teen pregnancy, sexual activity, and STD's is for parents to be more open about sexual topics with their teens. There needs to open discussion and mutual understanding. Teenagers respond to their friends, and if there is a topic about which a teens do not feel like they can rely on the parents as friends, they will rely on the information and opinions of their teenage friends.

To an extent, I agree with this.

However, I've never been a follower of the "treat your child as your friend" philosophy. I agree there needs to be an atmosphere that can promote mutual understanding, and that there needs to be a (rare) dialogue between parent and child, but I think if that understanding is based on an authoritative and loving parent-child relationship, the result will be far better than if it were based on a friend-to-friend model.

I can't stress this enough. It matters very little what is taught and what is available in the schools. What matters is what is taught at home.

I agree with this, and it's largely my belief that government should stay out of family life as much as possible that leads me to think that the availability of contraception through the public school system is a horrible idea- even if it does reduce pregnancy and the spread of STD's.

For the record, if you want to get a good idea of the trends surrounding social sexual issues, you should read the reports of the Guttmacher Institute. Their statistical methods are superb. Many of the conclusions presented in my comments are drawn from my own graduate research in statistics. I began by reading reports from the Guttmacher Institute which I initially thought were bogus. My intent in researching the topics was to debunk what I had read from Guttmacher. I was quite surprised to find through my own research that Guttmacher had nailed all of the correct conclusions.

I'll take a look; thank you for the suggestion.

[hordak]

Another bad analogy. Condoms have one function: to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's during sexual activity. Seat belts also have one function: to keep passengers in motorized vehicles safe.

It's clear that sexual activity and driving in a car are two significantly different things. For one, the rules governing safe and responsible sexual activity are eternal and to be uilized only in the confines of marriage, and it aren't as integral to a child's life as transportation in a car. On the other hand, the rules governing safe and responsible driving are temporal and more vital for a child to know.

There is no perfect apology for sex. I can't think of any other natural God given urge, that comes on when "least ready", we try to suppress in some while "promoting" in others.

.

I should clarify what I meant. My usage of "(properly utilized)" was meant to imply that the education came first and foremost from the parents, in the home. In hindsight, what I said was horribly misleading, and I apologize.

I am aware of studies showing that school-based abstinence-only education doesn't work. That makes sense to me- schools aren't designed to instill basic moral values in children, that's the job of the home. If a child is reared in an unloving and undisciplined home, most of the time whatever morals are taught at school won't have a huge impact.

On this we can agree. My point is that the "If they don't get taught about safe sex, they wont have sex" is equity absurd as the "they're going to have sex anyway" attitude. And there are things we don't want for our children, but still prepare them for the worst case scenario,

Why would we treat this different?

[Vort]

And there are things we don't want for our children, but still prepare them for the worst case scenario,

Why would we treat this different?

Because they have control over it.

I don't spend even a moment of time teaching my children techniques to lessen the damage if they choose to jump off a cliff. Similarly, I do not teach them how best to drill through their forearm without hitting their ulnar artery. Instead, I teach them not to jump off of cliffs or drill holes through their forearms.

I think it's a good idea for parents to introduce their children (AT AN APPROPRIATE AGE) to condoms and other types of birth control. I think it's an excellent idea for them to explain to their children in great detail how diseases are transmitted and how some substances act as barriers. But I want my children to know and really believe that their sexual integrity is worth as much as their very lives, perhaps more. School teachers unrolling condoms onto bananas aren't teaching the students the important things.

[hordak]

In America it is generally the case that "toilet" means "privy", but many other English-speaking areas, including England, use "toilet" to mean "lavatory". This usage is actually closer to the original French word toilette, "little cloth", the small towel or cloth on which one laid out one's grooming items. So her usage was correct, if nonstandard for Americans.

I sometimes forget there is more then American English :)

[prisonchaplain]

Condoms in toilets gross. (Just teasing you, but in English toilets are the receptacle themselves, bathrooms are the rooms the toilets are in, regardless of whether or not they actually have a bath. )

Not to side track the thread, but in Hong Kong the "bathrooms" were referred to and labeled as "Toilets." I thought it was rather direct too, but grew rather tired of finding "public baths" whenever I asked where the bathroom was.

[prisonchaplain]

Teaching kids about birth control is not "giving them permission" anymore then teaching kids the dangers of guns is. Giving them condoms is encouraging them to have sex as much as telling them to buckle up is encouraging them to drive dangerously.

And studies show Abstinence only programs don't work.

Advocates For Youth - Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact

What does "don't work" mean. Are you suggesting that children who are taught how to use condoms, or other birthcontrol, have less sex than children who are only taught "Just say no." My guess is the standard for measurement is "unwanted pregnancies." If so, of course the abstinence-only approach is a loser.

IMHO, the standard is wrong. Which approach reduces premarital intercourse? That's my standard. And, yes, condoms offers a measure of reduced risk against STDs. However, it's purpose is birth control. How can that not lead kids to believe they can risk sex?

To use your driver analogy. Giving your 13-year old child a set of keys to your car, along with your AAA card would certainly allow them to drive safer than giving them nothing. After all, abstinence-only here might result in them causing cosmetic damage as they hotwire your car, and leave them stranded (strangers helping children, oh my!). Nevertheless, I doubt any posters will be volunteering the keys and card to their teenie-boppers any time soon.

[hordak]

Because they have control over it.

I don't spend even a moment of time teaching my children techniques to lessen the damage if they choose to jump off a cliff. Similarly, I do not teach them how best to drill through their forearm without hitting their ulnar artery. Instead, I teach them not to jump off of cliffs or drill holes through their forearms.

I think it's a good idea for parents to introduce their children (AT AN APPROPRIATE AGE) to condoms and other types of birth control. I think it's an excellent idea for them to explain to their children in great detail how diseases are transmitted and how some substances act as barriers. But I want my children to know and really believe that their sexual integrity is worth as much as their very lives, perhaps more. School teachers unrolling condoms onto bananas aren't teaching the students the important things.

Ah. I see this is a school sex ed vs parents sex ed thread (to everyone else) I was thinking of it as an this is birth control vs "i told you so" (as i was disagreeing with post number 5 when this discussion kicked off)

In which case i agree it's up to parents to instill the values, and that abstinence should be the goal for the kids. But that teaching kids (age appropriate) about birth control will not lead to sex. And i for one would rather have a 16 year old daughter, who gives into temptation, and has protected sex, then one who knows nothing about it, gives into temptation and has unprotected sex.

[hordak]

What does "don't work" mean. Are you suggesting that children who are taught how to use condoms, or other birthcontrol, have less sex than children who are only taught "Just say no." My guess is the standard for measurement is "unwanted pregnancies." If so, of course the abstinence-only approach is a loser.

IMHO, the standard is wrong. Which approach reduces premarital intercourse? That's my standard. And, yes, condoms offers a measure of reduced risk against STDs. However, it's purpose is birth control. How can that not lead kids to believe they can risk sex?

The standard didn't look at pregnancy rates, it looked at sexual behavior.

[prisonchaplain]

The standard didn't look at pregnancy rates, it looked at sexual behavior.

The study appeared to consider all aspects--attitudes, on-set of sexual experience, and, at least indirectly, pregnancy. The introductory, and indeed the entire article, made it clear to me that the conclusion could have been written before the studies were done. Even the titles of the programs "Comprehensive" vs. "Abstinence-only-until-marriage." I'm jaundiced because I grew up in a liberal school district that was very open about promoting sex education, and about being very willing to give out birth control or provide abortions, without parental consent. Most of my teachers were shocked that the government didn't pay for everyone to have abortions. This groups smells of that bias.

Nevertheless, I found the discussion and conclusions inconclusive. After all, as the study pointed out, 15 year olds are naturally more open to abstinence than 16 and 17 years old, and they more than 18 year olds, etc. So, if the measure is reduced sexual activity and more conservative social mores in a population that is progressing through a their peek sexual activity years, then I would say that perhaps seeing no increase sexual activity is a victory. This study was so full of conditional and tentative statements, that I'm not sure it was conclusive at all.

[MarginOfError]

This then begs the question: who's role, if any, is it to pick up the pieces?

Certainly not the government's.

Could you then give an example of any program that has been more effective at curbing teen pregnancy and the transmission of STDs?

I would be interested for seeing the statistics for children 50-100 years ago, when the family was more widely recognized as the basic unit of society- and before moral relativism was far less pervasive. I'd hazard that this statistic varies widely depending on the importance placed on the family within any general society.

I don't have those statistics broken down by generation. However, the percentage of people engaging in sex premaritally has remained pretty constant the past 100 years. Sexual immorality has always been very rampant.

Again, this goes back to the question: if the parents fail in their duty, is it really the role of the government (or the school) to pick up the pieces?

Who else do you recommend? I'm open to suggestions, but there's a pretty clear problem, and you're saying we shouldn't be using the only method we've seen give any results. What else do you propose?

So the health of the famliy unit has a far greater effect on a child's sexual activity than social sexual health instruction?

Yup. Exactly.

Again, we have to ask ourselves if it's the proper role of the schools to offer this kind of education, and how we should measure 'success'.

No no no. No one wants schools to offer this kind of education. But it seems clear that they aren't getting it in other places. Offering it in schools is a stop-gap.

What I have a problem with is the liberal idea of just instituting sex ed in schools and leaving it at that. The goal should be to remove sex ed from the schools in the future. Now we have to figure out how to get parents to be better parents.

I feel that the offering of free contraception (particularly without notifying the parent) is the beginning of a pernicious cycle, and symptomatic of a deeper philosophical problem on the part of the government and whoever else is behind it.

It's actually the extension of a pernicious cycle. It started with bad parenting with regards to sex.

Agreed, but when the government steps in and tries to take over the parents' jobs, things get even worse. There will always be parents that fail in their jobs, and there will always be people just waiting to jump in and shout "look at this sad, horrible injustice! We as a community need to step in, intervene on this child's behalf, and fix this problem!".

As I've stated before, if parents were the ones providing the education, the government wouldn't have needed to step in.

Some things are best handled on a family level.

So we need to figure out how to get more families to handle this. Because right now, they're doing a pretty crappy job.

To an extent, I agree with this.

However, I've never been a follower of the "treat your child as your friend" philosophy. I agree there needs to be an atmosphere that can promote mutual understanding, and that there needs to be a (rare) dialogue between parent and child, but I think if that understanding is based on an authoritative and loving parent-child relationship, the result will be far better than if it were based on a friend-to-friend model.

This is where the studies about parenting get interesting. Children whose parents disclose lots of personal information report having less satisfying relationships with their parents than children whose parents do not disclose personal information. In essence, over disclosure from the parents renders the parent ineffective.

But on the flip side, children who don't disclose to their parents also don't listen to their parents. Youth tend to listen more to the people they feel comfortable telling about their lives. If they aren't talking to their parents about something, they are talking to their friends. So somehow we have to get children to talk to parents without parents disclosing too much personal information. That's a tough line to walk because you create disclosure by disclosing.

The most important thing that can be done, then, is to create an atmosphere in which the child can discuss sex openly, honestly, and get an understanding of all the options without the fear of be punished or disciplined. Historically, parents have been overly protective with regards to sex, which creates the illusion to children that they cant' talk to parents about it.

I agree with this, and it's largely my belief that government should stay out of family life as much as possible that leads me to think that the availability of contraception through the public school system is a horrible idea- even if it does reduce pregnancy and the spread of STD's.

I'll take a look; thank you for the suggestion.

This is where I lose you. Government involvement in family life is a lousy idea. I hate that our government has to do something that parents should be doing. But I disagree that it's good to make the issue worse by not providing some kind of intervention. When teen pregnancy and STDs do so much damage to people and societies, I think that not doing anything is a far worse course of action, regardless of how repulsive it is to our moral framework.