OCK POSTS #75

I wonder OCK what you think of Ryzard Legutko opinion of liberalism?  He wrote this in the Winter 2008 Issue of Modern Age.

First, liberalism has an extremely modest position in the entire history of human experience: “To put it simply: liberalism as a theory is not interesting.” Legutko notes that it is extremely difficult to think of any outstanding thinker or writer who can be characterized solely as a liberal. Great minds have always attempted to achieve wisdom by taking strong positions on ultimate questions, but “the liberal ignores those questions because he considers them either irrelevant or…dangerous.”

Second, “liberals always place themselves in a higher position than their interlocutors, and from that position they have an irresistible urge to dominate.” While claiming to want a society in which people are free to make their own decisions, “they always usurp for themselves…the role of the architectonic organizer of society; thus they always want to dominate by performing the roles of the guardians of the whole of the social system and the judges of the procedural rules within the system.”

Third, liberals confuse two distinct claims about freedom: the claim that freedom of action should not be impeded by arbitrary will, and the claim that what free people want is a liberal order. “By identifying these two beliefs [as one and the same] liberals assume that whoever wants freedom must necessarily want liberalism, and whoever wants liberalism must necessarily want freedom. Armed with this assumption liberals assess the progress of freedom by the yardstick of acceptance of their own system.”

Fourth, while preaching the superiority of pluralism, liberals actually propagate an intensely dualistic vision of the world, dividing all persons into two camps: pluralists and monists. Pluralists are liberals. Monists are “ayatollahs, Adolf Hitlers, Christian fundamentalists, Catholic integrists, Islamists, conservatives and many more.” The result is not only ideologically convenient; it also degrades thought and leads to “sweeping judgments, positive or negative, about everything in the past, present, and future.”

Fifth, fearful of potential enslavement lurking everywhere, liberals embrace all “modern ideological mystifications, which are often created in bad faith and from evidently erroneous assumptions.” Ideologies such as Communism are a good example but liberals are routinely co-opted by all who adopt their “rhetoric of liberation”. In a liberal order, every group learns “to make a convincing case that it is a victim of a particularly sinister form of discrimination.” Liberals can only encourage more of this, leading to ever greater social chaos.

Legutko concludes that, practically speaking, liberalism breeds “ideological commissars who have acquired remarkable abilities to silence their critics. For whoever disagrees with them is a potential candidate to become a new Adolf Hitler.” Indeed, if you emancipate man from God, he inevitably becomes his own worst enemy. What’s wrong with liberalism? Riszard Legutko has it exactly right.

Do you really want your childs source of sex education to be other kids or the entertainment industry?  I don't know about you but I would much rather they get the correct information from reputable sources, there peers are anything but reputable.  Getting information from there peers is what leads to false information like you can't get STDs from oral sex getting around.

And Abstinence is part of comprehensive sex education as well.  I don't understand why you think that comprehensive sex ed doesn't encourage abstinence.  If there are programs out there that ignore abstinence then they need to be stopped because abstinence needs to be highlighted as the only 100% effective method to avoid STDs and pregnancy.

This doesn't screw with my logic at all.  The girl obviously wasn't taught properly.  She wasn't told what the consequences of her actions would be.  I'm not saying that all comprehensive sex-ed programs out there are flawless, but they're certainly better than abstinence only because at least in comprehensive they are given information that they can use to make better decisions, it doesn't mean that they will always make good decisions.

No I haven't raised any teens.  But I sure as hell am going to make sure they have access to all the information they need and I sure as hell would stress the importance of abstinence to avoid STDs and pregnancy.  Ultimately it doesn't matter what they are taught in schools because the parents have more influence over their children then they realize, I know that from personal experience.  Also sex-ed tends to be an optional curriculum in schools that parents can opt their children out of if they disagree with the program.  I know I had to bring home a permission slip every year before sex-ed started and kids who didn't have permission to take the course had to go to the library during that class time.  So again the parents have more influence than they sometimes realize.

Talk about misrepresenting statistics.  You know obessity has increased since sodas have been invented, maybe they are to blame for the epidemic of obessity, lets get rid of them and see what happens.  Maybe it's the influx of sex into everyday life that is causing the problems you noted rather than the sex education.  You the medias choice to focus on Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy vs actual news.  Or maybe how pervasive sex is in our every day lives.  Times have changed, you can't blame it all on comprehensive sex education.  At least with sex ed the kids are given some knowledge to protect them from STDs and pregnancy.  And knowledge is power.

That is just flat out wrong.  Parental permission is always needed for a child to enter into any sex-ed whether it be abstinence-only or comprehensive.  It has been that way at least since the late 80s when I started receiving sex-ed.

I have never heard of schools having their own abortion clinics, that is news to me.  And the only way they could refer the kids to a clinic to get an abortion without parental notification is if the state law allows abortions to occur without parental notification.  If the state requires notification then there is no way for the school to get around that.  If you want parental notification on the books then you need to talk to your state representatives.

There is another alternative - since they are "your child", how about you? (the generic you as a parent).

That being said, most parents do not do it.  As long as the program has an opt out provision, I see no problem with it.  I personally do not see teaching Kindergarten students about sex, and would rather teach them myself at the appropriate time. But if parents dont care or want the school to, let them.

Finally a voice of reason.  I too wouldn't agree with Kindergarders getting sex-ed, but by 5th grade I wouldn't have a problem with it (that's when I started to get it).  The bottom line is that too many parents are either unwilling or afraid to talk to their kids about sex which leaves the education up to the public schools.  You are more than welcome to opt your child out of the program if you disagree with it, but please do something to educate your children in those cases.  Ignoring an issue doesn't make it go away.

who is advocating ignoring anything?  I'm not.  Luls's not. 

Teaching your child abstinence is NOT ignoring any issue.  It's an alternative to the sexualization of our kids.

You cannot hand condoms out to kids in sex-ed and tell them at the same time "not to do it" with a straight face.

I pulled my kids out of the program because they were "encouraging" the kids to have sex.  Yes.  That's what I call it.

One of my friends who had older children first warned me about it.  She had daughters and sat down with her eldest daughter before she entered HS.  She told the daughter what she would see and encounter when it came to the permissive attitude regarding sex in the HS.    She taught her daughter not to follow the crowd and told her the benefits of waiting. She also told her once she crossed that line she could never go back and encouraged her to wait until her wedding as the best gift she could give her future husband. 

This daughter had a close knit group of girlfriends.  One by one, she watched them "fall" into the net of expectation that all kids in HS have sex.  She saw them go from guy to guy.  Once they crossed that line....it's a "so what" attitude.   This girl, wo was taught abstinence, was the only virgin in her group of girlfriends when they marched at graduation.  She remained that way until she married after dating the same boy for four years. 

Abstinence does work.  It's NOT 100% effective anymore than any other form of BC or sex ed program....but it does work.  The more kids who are taught the benefits of abstience the more kids will have support to wait at the very least until they are much older and in a committed relationship.  Kids tend to follow other kids.  If they have some good role models to listen to they may also make that decison to wait.  But when these role models do come about professionally as some have done in the past, they are mocked and ridiculed something fierce. 

They are NOT given the tools for waiting in comprehensive sex-ed.  They are given BC and a green light.  Abstience is nothing more than an afterthought if it EVEN gets mentioned at all.  Usually it's "when you're ready, do this." 

I never said that you or LuLu were ignoring the issue.  I was making a general plea that if you (as in the general you meaning everyone) opt your (again the general your) child out of sex ed please do something to educate your child about sex whether it be abstinence or comprehensive.  I may disagree with what method you may choose to educate your child with, but if you are doing it at home then you can do whatever you want.

Yes you can.  You can say something along the lines of: "I hope you never have to use these until you're married but if you do choose to have sex before marriage please use a condom."

I have the utmost respect for that approach.  The problem is that too many parents choose to ignore the topic of sex altogether and leave their kids to fend for themselves.  If those kids are then opted out of the sex ed in schools then they have nowhere else to turn but to extremely unreliable sources and problems occur.  I would much prefer that sex ed wasn't needed in schools, but until ALL parents are willing to talk to their kids about sex it will be needed.

And that should be the cornerstone of any sex ed class.  Comprehensive sex ed should teach the kids that abstinence is the best practice, but for a school to ignore teaching kids about proper use of birth control methods is irresponsible in my mind.  My sister ended up with abstinence-only education (I don't know why my school district changed it's tune by the time she got to sex ed but they did) and when she was in college she ended up sharing birth control pills with her roommate and they both thought they were protected against pregnancy.  Luckily when I found out about this I was able to inform her correctly before anything happened.

At least from the comprehensive sex ed programs that I've heard about this is simply NOT true.  They are informed that abstinence is extremely important, and if there is a so-called comprehensive sex ed class that doesn't encourage absistenence then it is not truly comprehensive in my mind and should be discontinued in favor of one that does encourage abstienence.  I completely disagree that offering students access to birth control gives them a green light to having sex.  I think that is a point that you and I will never agree on (add it to the list).

I suspect I am older than you - Mine did not start until the 7th grade.  And yea, by then I had gone through puberty and had some BAD misconceptions (I was raised by my mother and no she did not talk to me about it).  5th Grade (or even 4th for some) is not too young to start with the basics, but I made sure my children knew.  IN our state, they would send home the curriculm, and we could review it.  So we read it and then educated our own on it, and had them get some extra recess (actually Library) time.  But I did not see any problems with it here (but then that started about 17 years ago for us - and ended about 8 years ago when I sat my youngest down - but he had most of the facts from his siblings by then).

KFC POSTS:

I agree. One, if not the main, reason why is because there is a war going on between the two factions. The contraceptive "safe sex" ed lobby made up of organizations like the NEA, SIECUS, Alan Guttmacher, and Planned Parenthood fight tooth and nail against sharing tax payer money which would fund abstinence only education programs.  

EL DUDERINO POSTS:

The only fact that the comprehensive sex ed side can rightly claim can be taken from a direct quote from Donna Leiberman, NY head of CLU reproductive rights effort, who over 10 years ago, admitted in a debate, "Every scientific study of sex education programs that has ever been done shows that the only effect of sex education is increased use of contraceptives among teengagers."   

EL-D,

The studies are out there.... 

One of the largest and most comprehensive studies of teen sex education was conducted by Dr. Stan Weed of the Institute for Research and Evaluation in Salt Lake City. It shows why abstinence is the most successful method of preventing physical and emotional complications resulting from pre-marital sexual activity.


http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07061304.html

Last April, the Heritage Foundation also released a detailed on Abstinence education saying it's  "crucial to the physical and psycho-emotional well-being of the nation's youth,".

The report, "Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence", examined 21 studies of abstinence education programs, and concludes that statistics show that abstinence programs are effective in deterring teens from becoming sexually active, thereby reducing the risk of STDs, teen pregnancy, etc.

The Heritage Foundation authors, Christin C. Kim and Robert Rector, demonstrate that a majority of abstinence programs have reported a statistically significant decrease in levels of sexual activity for students who participate in them.

Of 15 sex-ed programs that primarily taught abstinence, 11 reported positive findings, while of 6 "virginity pledge" programs, 5 reported positive findings.

One abstinence program, Reasons of the Heart, reported that only 9.2 percent of virgins who went through the program were sexually active a year later, compared with 16.4 percent of those virginal teens who didn't go through the program.

Another program, called Heritage Keepers, reported, "One year after the program, 14.5 percent of Heritage Keepers students had become sexually active compared with 26.5 percent of the comparison group," making students from the abstinence program about half as likely to become sexually active as those not in the program.

A third program, Best Friends, found that "Best Friends girls were nearly 6.5 times more likely to abstain from sexual activity" than those not in the program. It was also found out, "They were 2.4 times more likely to abstain from smoking, 8.1 times more likely to abstain from illegal drug use, and 1.9 times more likely to abstain from alcohol."

Abstinence programs, observes the report, are admirable in that they are not only about sexual behavior, but "also provide youths with valuable life and decision-making skills that lay the foundation for personal responsibility and developing healthy relationships and marriages later in life."

The report complains that while an enormous amount of effort is being put into teaching "comprehensive" sexual education, very little effort is put into teaching abstinence. "Today's young people face strong peer pressure to engage in risky behavior and must navigate media and popular culture that endorse and even glamorize permissiveness and casual sex," write Kim and Rector. "Alarmingly, the government implicitly supports these messages by spending over $1 billion each year promoting contraception and safe-sex education - 12 times what it spends on abstinence education."

Instead, says the report, "In the classroom, the prevailing mentality often condones teen sexual activity as long as youths use contraceptives. Abstinence is usually mentioned only in passing, if at all."

The Heritage Foundation's report concludes urging that, "When considering federal funding for abstinence education programs and reauthorization of Title V abstinence education programs, including maintaining the current definition of 'abstinence education,' lawmakers should consider all of the available empirical evidence."

To read the Heritage Foundation report, see:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1897.cfm

Classroom sex ed programs really got underway in 1970 right after Congress passed its Title X funding program. They were established under the general Health curriculum.  It wasn't long after that Alan Guttmacher told supporters that in order to achieve "the perfect contracepting society" Planned Parenthood in addition to offering contraceptive products, would have to establish "contraceptive education for all youth so that at the approprieate time in thier lives contraception will be accepted as naturally as breathing."  Then came Roe v Wade in 1973.  And thus a whole new ball game as far as sex ed was concerned...general health education became  "reproductive health education" and all the sex educaiton programs are nothing other than marketing programs designed to sell sex to kids. Granted they aren't in all schools across the nation, but they are working on it.

Guttmacher told the Washington Star newspaper, "Then how can the Supreme Court decision be absloutely secured? The answer to winning the battle for elective abortion once and for all is sex education." And there it is...straight from the horse's mouth, sex ed is all about selling birth control products to children and indoctrinating them that when it doesn't work, abortion does.         

If abstinence is only mentioned in passing then it is my opinion that it is NOT a comprehensive sex-ed class.  My feeling on the subject is that comprehensive sex-ed should stress the importance of abstinence while educating the students on the proper use of contraceptives, STDs, pregnancy, etc.  Abstinence is a vitale part of any sex-ed class and needs to be stressed, if it isn't then it the class is worthless.

I honestly don't care about the rate of teen sex as much as I do about the rate of the spread of STDs and teen pregnancy.  As you cite early the comprehensive sex-ed classes do increase the use of contraceptives which is extremely important.  If students coming out of abstinence only programs don't know how to use contraceptives properly than those that are sexually active are more likely than comprehensive sex-ed students to spread STDs and get pregnant.  And isn't the entire point of sex-ed to decrease the rate of spreading STDs and teen pregnancy?

now here we have common ground El-D.  But I don't think you understand where we're coming from.  Lula and I have had teens go thru HS.  We know what they're teaching and abstinence is NOT hardly mentioned at all.  I think partly because now there seems to be an invisible line drawn that says that you have to be on one side or the other. 

Because of the either not mentioned or hardly mentioned abstinence in the sex-ed programs across the country, parents like me were/are taking their kids out of the program altogether. 

I've already covered this when I said there are those girls who think they're safe with the pill and then have sex with whomever making themselves very vulnerable to STD's.  Kids tend to be very gullible and have a hard time thinking they would be contracting anything like an STD from a nice kid they met in class or maybe knew their whole lives.  They never think it'll happen to them. 

Basically anyone who is sexually active especially with mulitple partners is at a higher risk for an STD.  A kid taught abstinence is much more likely to wait longer before their first sexual encounter and we all know that one who practices abstinence is 100% safe.  And just because they are taught abstinence doesn't mean they don't have a clue about BC. 

El-D you keep assuming or insinuating that one taught abstinence is an idiot when it comes to BC. 

Well it depends on who you're speaking to.  My belief is we are to teach our kids to abstain because morally speaking it's the right thing to do.  Physically it's the right thing to do. Emotionally it's the right thing to do and spiritually it's the right thing to do. 

For some the entire point is to sexualize our kids because there's a great financial reward to be gained.  For the most part,  our kids have the highest amount of disposable income than anybody.  When you put teens and sex together there's gold in them thar hills and the PP clinics and such know exactly what they're doing.   Cell phone companies do the same thing.  Go to the kids.  It's a huge market. 

And as I have said this is where proper comprehensive education comes into play.  A properly run comprehensive sex-ed class would educate the students that the pill only protect against pregnancy (and even that has a failure rate) and that a condom is needed to prevent spreading STDs and making the risk of pregnancy that much lower.  Hell even the ads for the various BC pills don't claim to protect against STDs.  Education is key here.

Where are abstinence-only kids taught about proper uses of birth control?  If they are not taught properly then they may as well not be taught at all.  I have heard of some abstinence-only programs that actually instruct kids that condoms don't work at all.  If kids leave those classes with that mindset and they end up having sex anyway do you actually think they are going to bother attmepting to use a condom?  I'm not saying that it is the case for all abstinence-only programs, but it does happen.

Also maybe we are having a break down between us of what is involved in an abstinence-only vs. comprehensive sex-ed program.  So what exactly is the curriculim involved in an abstinence-only program?  Whether it's in practice or not my idea of a proper comprehensive sex-ed program is along the following lines:
1) emphasize abstinence as the only 100% effective method of birth control and preventing pregnancy
2) Offer education on both male and female reproductive systems.
3) Offer education on child development from zygote to birth.
4) Offer proper education on the use of various contraceptives from the pill to condoms and everything in between highlighting their effectiveness again emphasizing that the only 100% effective method is abstinence.
5) Mock baby programs, egg, flour, mechanical crying, whatever as long as it is some form of mock parenthood.
6) Education on homo vs. hetero sexuals.

There is probably more to it than that but that is what I could think of off the top of my head based on what I was brought up on plus an addition or two.

EL-DUDERINO POSTS:

You may have the wrong idea of what "comprehensive" means in the public school sex education of our children.   

From my experience, there are only 2 criteria for sex ed to be called "comprehensive"....that it's taught in grades K-12th and must include a smidgeon of abstinence education. Only the pro-contraceptive crowd design and teach comprehensive sex ed programs...which includes their version of an abstinence message. It never emphasizes abstinence until marriage as the gold standard, rather it emphasizes abstain from sexual activity until you're ready, it's consensual and you're using some kind of birth control product. I've seen a 46 minute sex ed video that when actually timed had only two sentences that took a couple of minutes on the abstinence message. A sex ed booklet has 102 pages and only one 4 line paragraph dedicated to the abstinence message.   

There is no such thing as a comprehensive sex ed class that teaches true abstinence ed....for the simple reason they are opposite messages....one teaches self control.....save sex until marriage...while the other teaches wait to begin sexual activity until you decide you're ready...and here's a condom or BC.

What is important to know now that years have gone by and the lessons are there for the learning is that putting young girls on BC is dangerous to their health. The patches and vaccines have even killed some while the pill is taking its toll messing up their reproductive system. Middle school and high school age children are put into positions of an adult decision making role that is developmentally out of their reach, and stress and confusion even depression can result. These kids aren't meant to be engaging in sexual activity...not emotionally, physically, physiologically or spiritually. There are negative outcomes and some are not repairable. We see the results all around us....depression, proliferation of STDs, infections, less academic improvement, and even suicide.

No.. .K-12th grades sex ed is designed to get them sexually active. They support sexual experimentation and advise them in co-ed settings how to use and acquire condoms, BC and abortion as options. Comprehansive sex ed is permissive education that broadcasts a false sense of security that can cause otherwise unpressured adolescent and preteens to sexually experiment with their bodies and leads towards promiscuity. The sex ed curriculum gives rise to the use of contraceptives whiech in turn gives rise to STDs, pregnancies  and abortion.  It's the dog chasing its tail...and Planned Parenthood is getting rich from it.

Abstinence education programs are also motivational programs which :

primary message is postivie behavior decisions are possible and societally expected. ONe lifetime partner is the healthiest choice...promotes a positive and possible lifestyle that highlights the importance of self-control, character and commitment. It's comprehensive in the sense it's discusses sexuality in relationship to whole person concepts, it does discuss the emotional, psychiological, physical and societyal consequences of early sexual activity.   

1...has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity....

2....teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard...

3....teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid pregnancy, STDs and STIs, and other associated health problems.  

4...Teaches that mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.

5....teaches that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences to the child, the parents and society.

6...teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to them.

7...teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency..places value on personal and societal health and well-being.

Lula, lula, lula...tisk tisk.  The program is not designed to get young students sexually active, that's just your warped opinion, in my opinion.  I truly believe, which may not be worth a hill-o-beans to you, that your religion is controlling your perceptions of reality, not guiding them in a positive manner.  The program simply supports the choices of youth, just like your abstinence-only programs.  Whereas you believe students can be trusted to make the "right choice" always, we realists believe that students today cannot be trusted to make the "right choice" always, so we had better make sure they're damn well prepared for what could come from sexual activity.  Abstinence is still advised, which has been mentioned by others in this thread, but it is certainly not the only course of action because there is other information the youth of today will need.  I certainly want my future children to know how to properly utilize a condom or other contraceptive properly.  That said, I would not rely entirely on the schools to teach my children about sexual activity and conduct.  Also, BC and abortion can be mentioned as options because they are currently options regardless of what you want to believe or support in that realm.

Thank you Kurtin, I couldn't have said it better myself.  As I have said I think that abstinence needs to be stressed in any sex-ed class, if it isn't then the sex-ed class is flawed and should be redesigned.  That said I am of the opinion that the students need to be taught about proper uses of birth control and STD prevention so that IF they become sexually active they at least have the information to make informed decisions.  Yes it would be preferable for kids to wait until adulthood to have sex, but that simply isn't realistic (especially in our culture today where kids encounter sex every day on tv, radio, movies, music, etc).  Education is key and to deny a kid the information on ways to avoid STDs and pregnancy is irresponsible, expecting them to figure out how to use bc and condoms on their own is extremely irresponsible.  As I have asked before, when do you start teaching your children to look both ways before crossing a street?  While they are still in the stroller, when they start walking, or when you deem they are ready to cross the street?  I know if I had kids I would be teaching them that from day one so that it becomes second nature.  The same should be done with sex-ed.  Teach them about it early (around 5th grade, maybe 4th) so that by the time they decide to become sexually active they already know the information and can protect themselves.