(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

[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.