From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:21:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <exuptr.465.716066284@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.032302.23073@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:

>>        Sex education is there for one reason only: to give kids the
>>straight facts, pure and simple. No 'message', no preaching. They
...
n
>It is a straight fact, is it not, that the best way to avoid pregnancy and 
>STD's is abstinance?  Abortion, single mothers, unwanted childred, and nasty 
>diseases are all quite factual, and these should also be pointed out as the 
>harsh reality of consequences of sex, with or without "protection".

Hmm. I suspect you may be unaware of the methods of most sex education
programs (I can't speak for all, of course, only the ones I've heard
of/been in/am familiar with). I presume (although I don't know for
sure) that my experiences and understanding are 'typical'.

Sex education programs are designed to deliver facts to the students.
One of these facts is that abstinence is the absolute best way to
prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancy. Like all of the
other facts, facts about abstinence are included in the lectures and
literature of (most?) sex education programs.

Sex education programs are *not* designed to teach morality. So, a sex
education program would not teach, for example:

 - Abstinence is the only right choice.
 - Those who do not practice abstinence are depraved, sexually 
   perverse, or immoral.
 - (Any number of further moral points...)

Some who oppose sex education, or who would change sex education,
propose that:
 
1) Sex education, factual or otherwise, should not be in the purview
of public education.

- or -

2) Sex education should be modified to encourage abstinence
specifically, presumably labelling other activities as 'bad',
'unacceptable', 'immoral', or simply incorrect.

In reply to 1), I can only object in the strongest possible terms. We
cannot expect children to make critical decisions about their lives
unless we provide them with complete and timely information. For a
typical child in or entering puberty, the specifics of reproductive
biology are definitely relevant, particularly in a society where
sexual themes are so strongly featured in popular culture.

In reply to 2), I suppose it might be possible to construct a sex
education program which specifically encouraged abstinence without
parroting the strictures of some religious group (avoiding the 'church
-n- state' issue), but who decides how abstinence is to be encouraged?
What if some parents object to the moral teaching? What about the ones
who don't think it's enough? Where do you draw the line between
preaching a specific code of private behaviour and and 'encouraging'
abstinence? What about the children/teenagers who have already engaged
in sexual activity, or choose to anyway? Do we alienate them from the
sex education programs and from their own friends by publicly
denouncing their behaviour? How do you handle homosexual or other
non-traditional relationships among pre-adults in this situation?

I think most sex educators simply prefer to avoid these issues
entirely, leaving moral teachings to the student's parents and church,
since there is no uniformly fair and reasonable way to apply morality
teaching in the public educational atmosphere.

-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# I am sane. I am perfectly and completely sane. I shouldn't be in here     #
# at all. There's been a terrible mistake.                                  #
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4833 alt.politics.clinton:4149