Posted on 11/07/2007 5:35:15 AM PST by ShadowDancer
Lewinsky’s prevent pregnancy. Would anyone encourage their young daughter this method of birth control?
Hasn’t some idiotic celebretard advocated just that? As if Lewinsky’s are just a harmless release of teen energy? When we ignore the spiritual component in humans, we can justify all kinds of activity that might seem physically harmless or less harmful but is death to the spirit of that human.
I call BS on ALL “sex education.”
It has been shown over and over again that the more people are “taught” about sex, regardless of whether that “teaching” is how/when/where/why to do OR not to do it, the result is more sexual activity.
I don’t have a link, but I just read a study about sex offenders. Those who went through an intensive group therapy program-—where they sat around for hours talking about sex acts with other sexual offenders-—actually ended up doing more sex offenses than those who didn’t go through the program. Seems that talking/thinking about sex, regardless of context, leads to more sex on the brain, which leads to more acting out of sexual urges.
I say “duh.”
I have never understood how “sex” can even be turned into “sex education.” It takes about ten minutes to explain the biology of the reproductive process. After that it’s all about values.
You know they are not sitting around in high school sex education classes talking about values. They are talking about sex acts, regardless if it is in the context of doing them or not doing them.
That leads to more people doing them more often.
A two-hour trip in the morning to get to school?
That is very sad.
Sorry for discussing things for which I don’t have time to find links, but I read a lot of science mags on the net and just have to bring up this one study in support of your cogent comment.
The study was about whether it was effective to explain things to teenagers or just to tell them what to do (don’t do it).
In a surprise (to the researchers), the study—which, IIRC, was quite well-designed (a large number of adolescents, etc.)-—clearly found that when parents went into elaborate explanations all that did was give the kids more bases on which to rationalize their behavior.
For example, when parents said “don’t drive fast because you could crash,” most kids then went through an analysis: how likely is it that I will crash? If I crash, how likely is it that it would be a bad accident? Etc. etc.
Then most kids, being kids, concluded that it was very unlikely that anything untoward would happen, so, having dismissed their parent’s *reasoning,* then they felt it was okay to disobey the rule altogether.
IOW, the study clearly found that kids felt that if the proffered reasoning wasn’t (in their minds) supportable, then they weren’t doing anything wrong by disregarding the rule. They linked the explanation for the rule and the rule together, and if the explanation (in their minds) didn’t hold up, then the rule didn’t either.
In the study, when parents said “don’t do it”—for example, don’t exceed the speed limit-—with no explanation, there was nothing for the kids to “argue” with in their minds and nothing they could use to rationalize breaking the rule. They were faced with either obeying their parents or disobeying their parents and many more kids ended up obeying.
Most parents probably haven’t thought about this phenomenon in exactly these terms, but I’d bet most would agree with this study and go “ah ha!”
That’s a long way to say your point is spot on. First, they do hear “as long as I wear a jacket, I can go.”
Secondly, and even more consequential in this context, they also tend to think, “do I really need a jacket? How cold is it really? What’s the worst that can happen if I don’t wear a jacket? (Kids’ answer: nothing.) Mom doesn’t want me to get cold, but I won’t get cold or it won’t matter if I get a little cold, or Mom thinks I’ll get sick if I get cold, but I won’t get sick, so that won’t bother Mom in the end. Etc. etc. Therefore, I can go AND not wear a jacket.”
“Just say no” actually was the way to go!
However, recent studies from California show that condom based sex ed programs resulted in an explosion of STDs in the state. Thus this program DOES effect child sexual behavior - it increases it.
This isn’t the study I was referring to, but one also of interest on how adolescents make decisions.
Teenage Risk-taking: Biological and Inevitable?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412115231.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517110542.htm
This study was about smoking, but just substitute “sex” for smoking and see what you get. The more you make kids think having sex at their age and in their circumstances is “normal,”-—just what happens with the “sex education”-—the more likely it is that kids will engage in sex acts. Why would anyone expect otherwise? You take a roomful of kids, put them in a room together for an hour a day and TALK ABOUT SEX, excuse me . . . what effect do people think this is going to have on what kids think about and eventually do?
How Normal Is Smoking? Teens Don’t Know, But Their Guesses Affect Their Habits
The more a high school student overestimates the percentage of people in the general population who smoke cigarettes [*engage in certain sex acts*], the more likely he or she will be to smoke [*engage in certain sex acts*], reports a University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine study published in the current issue of the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.
Felicitously titled, "Why Teens Do Stupid Things."
On the effectiveness of categorically avoiding risky behavior:
The findings on teenagers imply that interventions that use risk data regarding smoking or unprotected sex, for example, may actually backfire if young people overestimate their risks anyway. Instead, interventions should help young people develop "gist-based" thinking in which dangerous risks are categorically avoided rather than weighed in a rational, deliberative way.
Abstinence does nothing to reduce teenage pregnancies. Abstinent teens do not get pregnant so it is impossible to reduce this number. Teens that practice abstinence after they are pregnant are not affected by it either - they are already pregnant. The only way we know if teens practicing abstinence before pregnancy has any effect is to wait until they become pregnant, at which point it doesn't matter. So ultimately, abstinence is completely futile. (/incendiary post)
Someone was once asked to explain why humans are not just another species of animal. Intelligence, capabilities, physical attributes of human compared to animals are just a matter of where on the continuum each species exists. The answer given by this individual is that animals live up to their fullest potential only by following their instincts and appetites while humans live up to their fullest potential only by mastering their instincts and appetites. Therein lies the greatest difference and why studies about this or that tendency or instinct have little influence on my thinking.
When I have more time, I’ll take a look at that link. Thanks.
Sadly, that is a fact. We're a vocational/technical school. We have people from all over New York City, just about every zip code is represented. If they're coming from Queens, where most people don't live within walking distance of the subway, they have a long trip to school, in the southern end of Brooklyn.
Well, maybe it means that at least some of your students are highly motivated to get to school and take advantage of what it has to offer.
More power to you!
The necessary implication is that there is "Republican" "sex", "Democrat" (ugh) "sex", etc.
Not a good source I'd say.
The people who control this organization simply want unfettered access to any teenager they can get their hands on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.