The Political Discussion Thread

[mad_gater]

I am now bearing stark witness to the reality of an educational system that has forgotten to teach our children first and foremost how to love....that comes before everything else

[squirrely1]

In regards to evidence that abstinence-only education does not work..

http://www.planetwire.org/files.fcgi...Ed_Kohler_.pdf


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00060-0037.pdf


http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-p...6&size=largest

hmmm interesting...thanks for posting those links. I am looking through this data and it does make it hard to decipher I think you do need a statistical type of degree to be able to properly look through it all But I did find the following very intersting.....

In univariate analyses, increased
odds for teen pregnancy were significantly associated with
older age, black race, lower household income, noncentral
city metropolitan residence, and nonintact family unit status

and

This assessment of the impact of formal sex education
programs on teen sexual health using nationally representative
data found that abstinence-only programs had no
significant effect in delaying the initiation of sexual activity
or in reducing the risk for teen pregnancy and STD. In
contrast comprehensive sex education programs were significantly
associated with reduced risk of teen pregnancy,
whether compared with no sex education or with abstinence-
only sex education, and were marginally associated
with decreased likelihood of a teen becoming sexually active
compared with no sex education.
As has been previously reported [10], receipt of formal
sex education was associated with important sociodemographic
characteristics including age, income, and residence.
In addition, we also found a strong relationship
between family intactness and receiving sex education.
Teens from intact families were more likely to receive
formal sex education than teens from nonintact families

what this tells me is it is SO Important for sex education to come from the FAMILY and for the FAMILY to monitor such sex education. I think as such there was a "marginal" success with a comprehensive sex ed program with respect to reducing the likelihood of teens becoming sexually active. All this proves is the kids who may have been in the Comprehesive sex ed programs may have reported less teen pregnancy but they were still doing it...yeah cuz they were probably getting the free condoms that the schools were handing out *sigh*

[Womble]

Why exactly should religious worldview preclude sex education?

God made it pretty damn clear that we are expected- and encouraged- to "go forth and multiply". It so happens that multiplying requires having sex, so children SHOULD know how it's done, and ESPECIALLY if you want to discourage them from doing it. You can't maintain a prohibition without explaining what exactly it is that you're prohibiting. Plus you need to make sure that by the time they reach marriage-eligible age, they actually know what to do on the wedding night.

On top of that, the annoying quality of many STDs is that sex is only one of the ways they can be transmitted. So even if you want your son to get married to his high school sweetheart and live monogamously ever after, you still need to teach him about safe sex and STDs. It is always better to know than to not know.

One could argue that the emphasis of sex education should be on teaching kids to control their sexual urges, and that position certainly has merit. Psychological experiments have shown that in the aroused state, people are much more willing to engage in the kind of sexual behavior that they consider risky or repulsive when in a calm state of mind, so for someone who doesn't consciously intend to have sex the best solution is avoiding arriving to that point in the first place. But no one is perfect and no training is foolproof, so relying on abstinence education alone isn't going to cut it. It has to be both, not either/or.

[Giantevilhead]

Personal points of view are irrelevant. The only thing that should matter is what has been empirically shown to produce results. Sure you can talk about teaching kids to love and all that touchy feely stuff but it's meaningless. That didn't stop the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, nor did it stop the cover up of the scandal, and I'm pretty sure that those priests have deeper religious convictions than teenagers.

What research has consistently shown is that how much you can change behavior is limited by the extent to which you can modify the environment. You take a drug addict out of his environment and put him in a new environment and it becomes much easier to get him to stop abusing drugs. You put that drug addict back into his old environment then it won't matter how much he's been taught about love or respecting himself or faith in a higher power, the chance that he'll start using drugs again skyrockets.

The way to stop teen pregnancy cannot be done only through school or religion or even therapy. You want to make an effective and permanent change to their behavior, you have to alter the consequences of their behavior, and you do that by changing the environment. That means parents and schools need to do more about peer pressure. That does not just mean teaching kids to resist peer pressure but actually teaching kids not to use peer pressure and doing something about the kids who are trying to pressure other kids. It's also important for parents to know where their kids hang out and making sure that they do not go to places that are not appropriate for them. Probably the most important thing on the parent's part is to not capitulate when trying to eliminate problem behaviors. When you put a behavior on extinction, there is something called an extinction burst where the intensity, frequency, and emotional reaction of the behavior increases. If a parent puts a bad behavior on extinction but capitulates during the extinction burst when the behavior worsens then that will only compound the problem since they've just reinforced a more intense variant of that bad behavior.

[mad_gater]

Why exactly should religious worldview preclude sex education?

God made it pretty damn clear that we are expected- and encouraged- to "go forth and multiply". It so happens that multiplying requires having sex, so children SHOULD know how it's done, and ESPECIALLY if you want to discourage them from doing it. You can't maintain a prohibition without explaining what exactly it is that you're prohibiting. Plus you need to make sure that by the time they reach marriage-eligible age, they actually know what to do on the wedding night.

On top of that, the annoying quality of many STDs is that sex is only one of the ways they can be transmitted. So even if you want your son to get married to his high school sweetheart and live monogamously ever after, you still need to teach him about safe sex and STDs. It is always better to know than to not know.

One could argue that the emphasis of sex education should be on teaching kids to control their sexual urges, and that position certainly has merit. Psychological experiments have shown that in the aroused state, people are much more willing to engage in the kind of sexual behavior that they consider risky or repulsive when in a calm state of mind, so for someone who doesn't consciously intend to have sex the best solution is avoiding arriving to that point in the first place. But no one is perfect and no training is foolproof, so relying on abstinence education alone isn't going to cut it. It has to be both, not either/or.

abstinence only is NOT an across-the-board prohibition of sex...it just seeks to teach children just what sex is for, which is that it is an expression of the greatest life-giving love we are capable of...so what it really does is teach what is the right way and what is the wrong way to use this expression

[mad_gater]

Personal points of view are irrelevant. The only thing that should matter is what has been empirically shown to produce results. Sure you can talk about teaching kids to love and all that touchy feely stuff but it's meaningless. That didn't stop the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, nor did it stop the cover up of the scandal, and I'm pretty sure that those priests have deeper religious convictions than teenagers.

What research has consistently shown is that how much you can change behavior is limited by the extent to which you can modify the environment. You take a drug addict out of his environment and put him in a new environment and it becomes much easier to get him to stop abusing drugs. You put that drug addict back into his old environment then it won't matter how much he's been taught about love or respecting himself or faith in a higher power, the chance that he'll start using drugs again skyrockets.

The way to stop teen pregnancy cannot be done only through school or religion or even therapy. You want to make an effective and permanent change to their behavior, you have to alter the consequences of their behavior, and you do that by changing the environment. That means parents and schools need to do more about peer pressure. That does not just mean teaching kids to resist peer pressure but actually teaching kids not to use peer pressure and doing something about the kids who are trying to pressure other kids. It's also important for parents to know where their kids hang out and making sure that they do not go to places that are not appropriate for them. Probably the most important thing on the parent's part is to not capitulate when trying to eliminate problem behaviors. When you put a behavior on extinction, there is something called an extinction burst where the intensity, frequency, and emotional reaction of the behavior increases. If a parent puts a bad behavior on extinction but capitulates during the extinction burst when the behavior worsens then that will only compound the problem since they've just reinforced a more intense variant of that bad behavior.

so love and feelings are irrelevant....riiiiight......we're not cyborgs either

[mad_gater]

Personal points of view are irrelevant. The only thing that should matter is what has been empirically shown to produce results. Sure you can talk about teaching kids to love and all that touchy feely stuff but it's meaningless. That didn't stop the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, nor did it stop the cover up of the scandal, and I'm pretty sure that those priests have deeper religious convictions than teenagers.

What research has consistently shown is that how much you can change behavior is limited by the extent to which you can modify the environment. You take a drug addict out of his environment and put him in a new environment and it becomes much easier to get him to stop abusing drugs. You put that drug addict back into his old environment then it won't matter how much he's been taught about love or respecting himself or faith in a higher power, the chance that he'll start using drugs again skyrockets.

The way to stop teen pregnancy cannot be done only through school or religion or even therapy. You want to make an effective and permanent change to their behavior, you have to alter the consequences of their behavior, and you do that by changing the environment. That means parents and schools need to do more about peer pressure. That does not just mean teaching kids to resist peer pressure but actually teaching kids not to use peer pressure and doing something about the kids who are trying to pressure other kids. It's also important for parents to know where their kids hang out and making sure that they do not go to places that are not appropriate for them. Probably the most important thing on the parent's part is to not capitulate when trying to eliminate problem behaviors. When you put a behavior on extinction, there is something called an extinction burst where the intensity, frequency, and emotional reaction of the behavior increases. If a parent puts a bad behavior on extinction but capitulates during the extinction burst when the behavior worsens then that will only compound the problem since they've just reinforced a more intense variant of that bad behavior.

the Catholic Church also teaches that you can have all the deep convictions of the faith you like but if you are unrepentant of any grievous mortal sins when you die those convictions won't do you a lick of good....just because some people don't follow these teachings doesn't lessen their truth...it just means we have the capacity to reject truth

[VampyreWraith]

I agree. And speaking from my own experiences I acted out as a teen and did the wrong thing and made bad choices not because I didnt know better or wasn't educated, but because I was pretty much the victim of divorce and had little to no supervision. And so yeah I felt I had a void in my life and turned to sex to fill it. I just thank God I didn't end up pregnant and I did eventually find some great adults and teachers to help me through it but in looking back....Parents and adults are so critical to these young people more than they know. That is why I guess now I work very hard to be there for them.

It was similar with me. I've made some poor choices and a lot of that has to do with lack of self-seteem and self-confidence, and not because of lack of education on a subject. My homelife was pretty bad; even though we lived in a pretty nice neighborhood and always had lots of material things. There was a lot of arguing, and even some hitting; my dad was always "working"; my mom was overbearing, was never satisfied no matter how well I did; she used to put me down a lot. I don't really blame them since they had pretty crappy upbringings. I was always very introverted, and never very comfortable around people. I really do think family plays a vital part in the choices people make. I try to be as supportive as possible of my children, I talk to them, and try to make sure that they feel like they can talk to me.


I personally believe that a comprehensive sex ed program should be made available in schools; but I also believe thay parents should have the final say on whether their child participates. If for some reason, parents have religous or cultural reasons for not wanting their children to attend, I don't think it should be forced. Not everyone shares the same beliefs, and no one should be forced into learning something that goes against their cultural or religious values. Certain cultures and religions have different ways of teaching their children certain subjects. If they choose not have their children participate in a sex ed program, then that means they want to teach their child in their own way, based on their values. I don't think anyone has the right to interfere with someone else's values or beliefs, as long as they are not harming anyone. As long as parents are providing their child with a loving, supportive enviroment; and not emotionally or physically abusing their child, I don't think anyone has the right to tell a parent how to raise that child.
Most schools that I know of, allow children to be exempt from certain classes/activities for religious or cultural reasons.

When I mentioned sex-ed above, I'm not talking about a health or biology class. I think all kids should know how the various parts their body function, and about all the different kinds of diseases. If a class is specifically devoted to teach about sex and/or relationships, I think parents should have more of a say.

Just to add, I would allow my children to take a sex ed class in school. I'm not religious, and neither are my children. I've taught them a bit about religion; namely the catholic faith because thats what I know the most about. I think my kids can decide what they want to believe when they are older.

[Giantevilhead]

so love and feelings are irrelevant....riiiiight......we're not cyborgs either

Love and feelings are only relevant to the extent to which you can shape behaviors associated with them. You can talk or eve think about love and empathy and compassion all you want but unless actual behavior is involved, all those words and thoughts don't mean squat. Research has consistently shown that what people think about themselves rarely influence behavior. You see it in the Milgram's conformity experiments, Zimbardo's Stanford Prison study, Festinger's cognitive dissonance studies, Darley and Latane's Bystander Apathy Experiment, Darley and Batson's "Good Samaritan" study, etc.

When you talk to people about love and compassion and teach them to think about these things, that's all you're reinforcing. You're not actually teaching people to behave in that manner, you're only reinforcing their ability to think about those ideas. In order to change behavior, you cannot rely only on thoughts. Action and consequences are the key.

the Catholic Church also teaches that you can have all the deep convictions of the faith you like but if you are unrepentant of any grievous mortal sins when you die those convictions won't do you a lick of good....just because some people don't follow these teachings doesn't lessen their truth...it just means we have the capacity to reject truth

I guess the pope has that capacity in abundance when he decided to cover up the scandal.

[Galileo_Galilee]

So would you guys swim in a pool of caramel?

[mad_gater]

Love and feelings are only relevant to the extent to which you can shape behaviors associated with them. You can talk or eve think about love and empathy and compassion all you want but unless actual behavior is involved, all those words and thoughts don't mean squat. Research has consistently shown that what people think about themselves rarely influence behavior. You see it in the Milgram's conformity experiments, Zimbardo's Stanford Prison study, Festinger's cognitive dissonance studies, Darley and Latane's Bystander Apathy Experiment, Darley and Batson's "Good Samaritan" study, etc.

When you talk to people about love and compassion and teach them to think about these things, that's all you're reinforcing. You're not actually teaching people to behave in that manner, you're only reinforcing their ability to think about those ideas. In order to change behavior, you cannot rely only on thoughts. Action and consequences are the key.



I guess the pope has that capacity in abundance when he decided to cover up the scandal.

people who value themselves highly...their actions will reflect that.....just as the actions of people with low self-worth commit actions that are a reflection of that low opinion of their own self-worth.....I think you need to stop listening to Freud....

and I guess now doing everything you can to rectify a mistake now constitutes a "cover-up"....gotcha.....if you'd actually read things other than the liberal rags you seem to be reading all the time you'd know that Pope Benedict has most certainly NOT been idle with regard to the sex abuse cases.....he's working on all of them as fast as he can

[mad_gater]

It was similar with me. I've made some poor choices and a lot of that has to do with lack of self-seteem and self-confidence, and not because of lack of education on a subject. My homelife was pretty bad; even though we lived in a pretty nice neighborhood and always had lots of material things. There was a lot of arguing, and even some hitting; my dad was always "working"; my mom was overbearing, was never satisfied no matter how well I did; she used to put me down a lot. I don't really blame them since they had pretty crappy upbringings. I was always very introverted, and never very comfortable around people. I really do think family plays a vital part in the choices people make. I try to be as supportive as possible of my children, I talk to them, and try to make sure that they feel like they can talk to me.


I personally believe that a comprehensive sex ed program should be made available in schools; but I also believe thay parents should have the final say on whether their child participates. If for some reason, parents have religous or cultural reasons for not wanting their children to attend, I don't think it should be forced. Not everyone shares the same beliefs, and no one should be forced into learning something that goes against their cultural or religious values. Certain cultures and religions have different ways of teaching their children certain subjects. If they choose not have their children participate in a sex ed program, then that means they want to teach their child in their own way, based on their values. I don't think anyone has the right to interfere with someone else's values or beliefs, as long as they are not harming anyone. As long as parents are providing their child with a loving, supportive enviroment; and not emotionally or physically abusing their child, I don't think anyone has the right to tell a parent how to raise that child.
Most schools that I know of, allow children to be exempt from certain classes/activities for religious or cultural reasons.

When I mentioned sex-ed above, I'm not talking about a health or biology class. I think all kids should know how the various parts their body function, and about all the different kinds of diseases. If a class is specifically devoted to teach about sex and/or relationships, I think parents should have more of a say.

Just to add, I would allow my children to take a sex ed class in school. I'm not religious, and neither are my children. I've taught them a bit about religion; namely the catholic faith because thats what I know the most about. I think my kids can decide what they want to believe when they are older.

If you're parents were Catholics then they weren't very good ones if they forgot such basic teachings regarding marriage, where St. Paul said "Wives be submissive to your husbands, husbands love your wives as Christ loves His Church....the submission he talked about was not the fearful submission of slave to tyrant no matter what, but the loving and willing submission of oneself to legitimate authority...and for husbands to love their wives as Christ loves His Church.....that enjoins husbands to exercise the legitimate and loving authority deriving from Christ in his household....so definitely not a good example of a truly Catholic family

[VampyreWraith]

Personal points of view are irrelevant. The only thing that should matter is what has been empirically shown to produce results. Sure you can talk about teaching kids to love and all that touchy feely stuff but it's meaningless. That didn't stop the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, nor did it stop the cover up of the scandal, and I'm pretty sure that those priests have deeper religious convictions than teenagers.

What research has consistently shown is that how much you can change behavior is limited by the extent to which you can modify the environment. You take a drug addict out of his environment and put him in a new environment and it becomes much easier to get him to stop abusing drugs. You put that drug addict back into his old environment then it won't matter how much he's been taught about love or respecting himself or faith in a higher power, the chance that he'll start using drugs again skyrockets.

The way to stop teen pregnancy cannot be done only through school or religion or even therapy. You want to make an effective and permanent change to their behavior, you have to alter the consequences of their behavior, and you do that by changing the environment. That means parents and schools need to do more about peer pressure. That does not just mean teaching kids to resist peer pressure but actually teaching kids not to use peer pressure and doing something about the kids who are trying to pressure other kids. It's also important for parents to know where their kids hang out and making sure that they do not go to places that are not appropriate for them. Probably the most important thing on the parent's part is to not capitulate when trying to eliminate problem behaviors. When you put a behavior on extinction, there is something called an extinction burst where the intensity, frequency, and emotional reaction of the behavior increases. If a parent puts a bad behavior on extinction but capitulates during the extinction burst when the behavior worsens then that will only compound the problem since they've just reinforced a more intense variant of that bad behavior.

I agree with your post for the most part; particularly the bolded parts. I the part I don't fully agree with is your first paragraph. I don't think talking about "teaching kids to love and all that touchy feely stuff" is meaningless, but I do agree that it has to be a bit more than just talk.

[shipper hannah]

what this tells me is it is SO Important for sex education to come from the FAMILY and for the FAMILY to monitor such sex education.

It would be nice if teens could get good sex ed at home, but as you just highlighted, many children don't. It's the responsibility of the education system to ensure that children are properly informed about sex, contraception, pregnancy, STDs.

I think as such there was a "marginal" success with a comprehensive sex ed program with respect to reducing the likelihood of teens becoming sexually active. All this proves is the kids who may have been in the Comprehesive sex ed programs may have reported less teen pregnancy but they were still doing it...yeah cuz they were probably getting the free condoms that the schools were handing out *sigh*

That's my point, if didn't matter whether they had abstinence-only or comprehensive sex education, teens had sex either way. All the studies I cited that found that teaching about contraception was not linked to increase in sexual activity compared to no sex ed and abstinence-only sex ed.

[mad_gater]

So would you guys swim in a pool of caramel?

sounds like a capital idea....make sure it's bubbling hot too....it's no fun if I'm not getting 3rd degree burns all over my body.....