(no subject)

[fpb]

Where sex is concerned, people's powers of logic and argument fly right out of the window, especially if they are addicted to BBC/Guardian/Independent. I just read the following two sentences - in the blog, mind you, of an academic from one of Europe's most prestigious universities: "it's simply not true that sex ed lowers the age people start to have sex. It's far more complicated than that". A statement as incoherent and illogical on any other subject would have caused academic disgrace, or at least I hope so. Any teacher worth their salt would point out that just because "it's more complicated", i.e. other factors are involved, does not mean that "it's simply not true." It can be shown that every expansion of sex ed has corresponded with an expansion of underage sex practice. This does not prove that the one causes the other, but it places the burden of proof on those who would deny it outright.

Personally, I believe that sex ed does cause - or help to cause - underage sex practice, and the reason should be obvious to anyone who does not hide their head in the sand where sex is concerned: that is, that sex is taught as a rational and controllable activity where it is in fact irrational, terrible, and controlling. The first thing that a person in the grip of lust does is to forget reason. And to introduce children to this terrible force under this cloak of misguided rationality is like handing them the key to the dynamite store and expect them not to blow up things.

Comments

[cette-vie.livejournal.com]

I would argue for a strict dividing wall between teaching sex and teaching lust, which you seem to be confusing. Lust is certainly an irrational thing, and sweeps away reason. Yet you expect that lust will stay hidden and locked inside a person, until you tell them about it? Lust comes by itself - children learn masturbation well before puberty, and not one whit of knowledge, about what sex is or what it can happen to you because of it, can actually cause children to have sex on their own. It plants no seeds in our minds, because what actually motivates us to have sex is already there, conscious or subconscious.

(There's also a whole other argument to be made about the amount of underage sex that actually happens, and how much of it is actually adults consorting with minors, and what minors should have to protect themselves from being abused. But you get the drift. And there's also another argument to be made about how you seem to read a correspondence between expansion of sex ed and underage sex practice. It could be just as possible that the latter precipitates the former.)

For one thing, most sex ed I've seen is an introduction to the biological workings inside us, and either intentionally or unintentionally, it's pretty disgusting. They show you videos of a woman giving birth, talk of menstrual cycles, how much sperm is normally in a single ejaculation. It's not meant, nor should it, induce any willingness to have sex. The first time I accidentally saw a porn clip, shortly after my sex ed class in fifth grade, my primary impression was one of pain - how could something that big fit inside a woman? And wouldn't that hurt like hell? This is what children think of. Not how good it might feel, and how they'd like to try it out.

So my own interpretation of your metaphor would be something like this: the key exists around the house, and children will find it one way or another during the course of their childhood and adolescence. You can either show it to them at a certain time and tell them that it's the key to a very dangerous dynamite store, and about how they can hurt themselves by using it. Or you don't tell them about it, and hope that whenever they happen to find it, they don't bring a torch to try it in the door of the dynamite store. If lust sweeps all reason away, is it better not to have any reason there that could block you from a dangerous experience? That seems to be what you're saying.

Furthermore, just remember - it is entirely possible to have sex without knowing what you're doing, just as it is possible to know what sex is and not have it.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It is entirely possible to have sex without knowing what you're doing. And if you are taught to regard sex as a matter of mechanics, it is absolutely certain that you will.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

The data I've seen (no links) is that Dutch children get much better (from a liberal POV) sex education than British ones -- and start having sex a year later, with much lower teen pregnancy rates as well.

Sex ed might teach that sex is okay, if the teens are in a stable and loving relationship; it also teaches how to use birth control and protection to avoid the consequences of sex -- which means teaching what the consequences of sex *are*. "You can get pregnant the first time." "This is what pregnancy does to you." "Yummy STD pictures!" "Blueballs won't kill the boy, girls; you have no obligation to give in to sex with him."

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/308836
says Dutch start at the same age as Americans. Also that Americans have been having lots of teen sex since the 1950s, well before widespread sex ed.

It can be shown that every expansion of sex ed has corresponded with an expansion of underage sex practice.

Can you in fact show that?

Personally, I believe that sex ed does cause - or help to cause - underage sex practice, and the reason should be obvious to anyone who does not hide their head in the sand where sex is concerned: that is, that sex is taught as a rational and controllable activity where it is in fact irrational, terrible, and controlling. The first thing that a person in the grip of lust does is to forget reason.

But I find abstinence-only education as likely to lead to that. Abstinence teaches the urges are controllable; when they turn out not to me, the teens have no protection against disease and pregnancy. The sex ed teens do.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

In case you had not noticed, I am Catholic. Teaching children to use contraception does not strike me as a tremendous moral advance. It is also a part of that treating sex as a matter of mechanics which strikes me as totally wrong, unimaginably dangerous, disgustingly reductionistic, and profoundly intelligence-destroying.

As for using the most corrupt country in Europe, where they are proud of killing their old and sick, where they drive the Hirsi Alis out and have the Geert Wilderses tried in criminal court for telling the truth, as an instance of sound practice, I am simply astonished that you should. Do you not know that I have said - in exasperated jest, but I did say it - that it becomes kind of hard to believe in God when certain countries are never destroyed by fire from heaven?

And if you admit that sex is a terrible and controlling power, I do not see what should be educational about being taught to give in to it.

Let's face it: you have nothing to say to me and I have nothing to say that you would listen to. Let's just leave it at that and avoid further annoyance.

Wondering

[carakaye.livejournal.com]

So, just to put this all in perspective; you believe that sex ed causes underage sex, that sex is uncontrollable but that rather it is irrational, terrible, and controlling.

Okay then. I'll state that I believe you're wrong about sex ed and sex activity. Because there is no significant set of statistics suggesting a rise in underage sex with a rise in sex ed that I have seen to date.

Secondly, I don't think that sex is entirely controllable. Most people know what it's like to have emotions and hormones run amok. However, I don't think that sex is entirely controlling either, if one is rational and intelligent about it.(Which I fully believe one can be.)So tell me. Outside of rationality sometimes diminishing with hormones raging, what is so controlling about sex? And forgive me, but if sex is controlling (of course, I'm speaking in a hormonal sense because hormones are powerful entities indeed) wouldn't that make it all the more difficult to try and fight the inevitable? Not everyone can be a saint, and certainly no one wants to try. Celibacy is admirable, but impractical for most people. I would rather equip people with knowledge and preventative measures than have them hurt themselves and others with ignorance.

Just so I make myself clear, I will state that I don't approve of underage sex. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to try to keep kids from doing it. I've worked with them for too long to be as naive as all that. I would rather hand them the keys to the gas mask, protective gear and first aid stores first before I hand them the key to a dynamite store.

What I also realize is that some subjects are inarguable. Such as this particular one. However, I believe opinions should be shared without the pressure of trying to convert someone else's thoughts. So take my comments as they are- purely my own personal beliefs, not intended to prove a point or change your mind, but a window to a new outlook.

Re: Wondering

[fpb.livejournal.com]

This is such a display of everything I regard as completely WRONG about the current consensus that I find myself frustrated. Including the final invitation to disagree after she has horrendously misrepresented what I said. I NEVER SAID SEX WAS UNCONTROLLABLE. I do say that sex treated as you do it, as a matter of hydraulics with all the spiritual significance of a transistor, will certainly become uncontrollable. If you realize that you carry something dangerous within yourself, then you can control it. If you treat it as a matter of condoms (which break) and pills (which fail), you, one, fail to understand what it is, two, inevitably fail to control it - that is a corollary of failing to understand what it is - and, three, expose yourself to Murphy's Law. As for studies about sex education, there are plenty that contradict your views, but then you will of course criticize their methodology. The fact that you actually work with children, with this kind of presuppositions, simply terrifies me.