Deseret News | Educate teens about sex

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Educate teens about sex

Jeffrey | 12:10 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

If driver's education was taught in this state how conservatives' sex education is it would consist only of this: "Here's a car. Never drive it, or you will die!"

Class dismissed.

Sex education | 1:48 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Sex education should be left in the home! Why? Teaching sex education in schools without moral teachings from religious leaders and or parents is a disaster! Need proof? 70% of the babies born in some of our cities are illegitiate. But oh, they had sex education in school! Teach your children to be morally clean and teach them why?

Education? | 1:51 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I remember well my sex education in school. All it amounted to were lessons on how to have sex! No, I don't live in Utah, but I wish I did! I have teenage children to protect and trust me, in California, it ain't easy!

Comments continue below

Misinformed | 7:02 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I agree that kids need a good solid sex education unit. If you have actually taken the time to read it, Utah's curriculum is actually great and was developed with help from Dr. John Nelson, a leading ob/gyn. It does allow discussion of both preventing and reducing the risk of STDs and pregnancy. The curriculum objectives specifically includes a discussion of condoms and contraception/birth control. Let's remove the fear factor so teachers feel comfortable actually teaching the objectives so all kids can receive instruction. The analogy of driver's education does raise a serious question. Do we teach driver's ed to kids who are not old enough to responsibly handle a car. Brain development of kids points to serious lack of judgment including correct and consistent use of condoms. If we are going to talk about contraception, we need to talk about the risks and the fact that condoms have serious limitations - and they don't prevent emotional riks that are as serious as the physical.

Anonymous | 7:35 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Poor information and knowledge about these issues leads to heartbreak, broken lives, more abortions, more STDs, etc. Parents and their children are woefully ignorant about their own bodies, let alone that of their companion. Stop hiding it and promoting ignorance. We have a duty in life to acquire knowledge and understanding. If the moral aspects are taught along with full and complete information, people have the right to govern themselves.

Re.: Jeffery @ 12:10am | 7:36 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

That was the most idiotic & stereotypical comment I've ever read.

Drivers ed is taught in this state.

As far as sex ed, it is the parents responsability to teach it, for the reasons brought up by 1:48am & 1:51am.

Just because some parents fail this does not mean all parents fail at this!

Maud | 8:25 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Recent studies show a correlation between the religiousity of a place and the number of teen pregnancies - the higher the first, the higher the second.

Other studies indicate that, contrary to popular belief, the majority of pregnant teens are not from single-parent families living in poverty.

There is one major difference between sex education and driver's education that Misinformed seems to be missing: children do not come automatically equipped with a car - so we can wait to teach them how to use one.

Anonymous | 9:14 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

It is easy to say leave it to the home.

What happens to the kids that don't have decent parents?

Serious question. What would you propose we do with them? Those are the ones that are having the babies at 15 years old.

Of course parents are the best source. But what about those with lousy parents?

Jeffrey | 9:46 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

To follow up on my initial comment, which I absolutely stand by, Maud is completely correct. Studies have shown that the more religious a person, the higher the incidence of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The states with the highest incidence of both are the most Red states in the nation.

Why is that? I suspect because religious fundamentalists like to "leave everything in the hands of God", whatever that means, and not educate their children about such obviously "dirty" things. From young ages the children are made to feel ashamed of their "naughty" parts. Natural maturing processes are referred to as "immoral". Comprehensive sexual education is never taught. And parents are so embarrassed to talk about the subject their children are afraid to ask them basic questions, and instead gain their "knowledge" from whatever societal source they encounter.

You think sex education isn't the public domain's, but the parents'? You might have had a point if parent's would even attempt to educate their children instead of feed them with mumbo jumbo and scare tactics.

As it is, it's a matter of public health.

Just Ed | 10:15 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

We shouldn't teach about war in history classes. It just enourages kids to go out, form armies, and kill each other.

We shouldn't teach chemistry in school. It just gives kids carte blanche to go out and synthesize illegal drugs and create explosives for bombs.

We shouldn't teach math in school. It only encourages kids not to believe in God. How? Well I'm sure you could find some conservative somewhere who would explain exactly how. The answer wouldn't make sense, but that really doesn't matter, does it?

Utah Dem | 10:36 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Anon @ 9:14 - you state, "What happens to the kids that don't have decent parents?" Decent parents vs lousy parents (your terms) what does that mean? In our high school and we are in Utah there were at least 15 pregnant girls last year - the majority were from active LDS families - decent parents or lousy parents? Why is the parent the determining factor in a teen getting pregnant? By the time our kids are in high school they know right from wrong, unless of course there is another disability.
Absolutely no way should sex education be or continue to be a subject/class taught in our public schools. If parents/guardians are not taking upon themselves their proper duties then the girl and boy know full well they can get the necessary information on sex, STDs, pregnancy, condoms, etc from Planne Parenthood, clinics, doctors, .....

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 11:29 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Educate teens about sex?, when on TV they learn all about it with thing's such as FREE SAMPLES of Natural Male Enhancement herbs, and get them on line to, then they "JUST DO IT" anyway because it feels good. Plus they learn all about it on video games, on line porn, movies and DVD's to, from active kid's at school, older people that sell or buy beer for them and street drugs, in the music they listen to, watching MTV, in TV shows as well, in books, in search engines on line, on web sites, etc., etc.. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THESE EMAMPLES?, get rid of them, ONLY THEN, you can really TEACH your teens about sex, as written all about in the Holy Bible, and what is tought to them in Church, such as, KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS until you get married, then, use it. The rest will then come natural.

ANY QUESTIONS?.

Use common sense.

Oh Please | 11:31 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Not a chance, Audrey. The pinhead legislature backed by the semi-educated Moms of Utah Valley will never allow the intelligent approach you suggest. Keep up the good work, though.

@ Brother Chuck Schroeder | 11:45 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

The first half of your rant is exactly why we need comprehensive education - to separate the real from the fabricated.

@ Utah Dem | 11:47 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

"In our high school and we are in Utah there were at least 15 pregnant girls last year - the majority were from active LDS families -..."

Obviously then the parents weren't teaching the kids what they needed to know to not get pregnant!

Doesn't belong in home... | 11:53 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

There is one very important factor that influences whether or not sex education belongs in the home or in the schools: who pays when a teenage girl gets pregnant?

Even if the parents of the pregnant teen are able and willing to cover her medical needs and provide for her and the baby, even if the father pays support and helps raise the child, there are still social costs associated with this. Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school, they are more likely to end up on welfare, their children are less likely to do well in school and more likely to be single parents at a young age thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty, and on it goes.

There is also a social cost associated with an increase in the spread of STDs.

These factors make sex education a social concern and an appropriate topic for education in the schools.

Hatuletoh | 12:12 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Ah . . . I love wedge issues like this one. The ones shrill ideologues can use to stir up their respective sympathizers. Where would the online community be without them?

How about this: two sex-ed classes, one very comprehensive, including contraception, STD's, etc., the other strictly focused on anatomy and reproduction. Make the curriculae for each available to parents in advance, then allow them to opt out of the comprehensive class, or even out of the anatomy class. In other words, there would be three options: full sex-ed, anatomy-focused, or none at all. My kids would get the comprehensive, but your kids don't have to get that. I respect that this is a personal issue, and I have no interest in forcing my morality on others. Yes, it will create some lines of separation among the students, but some kids play football, others take drama, others smoke in the parking lot. That's high school.

Why is this so hard? Oh wait, I know: because the shrill ideologues need to to divide us reasonable, flexible people into opposing camps, otherwise what will become of the ideologues?

Opinionated | 12:44 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I taught my children sex education at home. That same lesson could be taught in one minute at school. It worked, by the way, regardless of how many people will say I'm crazy.

"Abstinence before marriage. Complete fidelity after marriage".

@ Opinionated | 1:19 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

That is currently the system we have - it may have worked great for your kids, but it is not working so great for many kids - that is why stds are increasing.

Anonymous | 1:37 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

So the PTA is going to tell us how to raise our children? Missing from the letter writer's list of choices is religious based teaching.

When teens understand sexual morality and eternal consequences from a spiritual point of view, it's very effective. Combine that with the responsibilities of taking care of babies and potential guilt and heartache turned into mental illness. Yes, combine that with the medical point of view about disgusting STDs.

Condoms are no guarantee to protect form STDs and pregnancy. Pills don't protect from STDs.

Abstinence is the only thing that works. But I don't know if the schools teach that or not, I've heard that they don't.

Yes, I believe that home is where it should be taught. And parents can do it, by loving wisdom, and if needed, by literature from their churches. And from statistics from sources like the letter writer.

@ Anonymous 1:37 | 3:49 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Religious based teaching is definitely one thing that belongs in the home - not in the public schools.

The PTA is suggesting 2 classes - parents can choose which one they want their child to attend and can supplement the lessons of that class in the home.

Utah Dem | 4:18 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Replier to my posts - I never said the parents were not doing their job - remember we all have choices to make and it truly doesn't matter whether your parents do a good job or not - these high school students are making their own choices.

misinformation | 6:20 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

My goodness - it is amazing to see misinformation fly through this column. First, PTA does not support a two track system. They want the current curriculum taught to all the kids with parent opt out options. And yes the curriculum is heavily focused on premarital abstinence with a general discussion of contraception but covers both the emotional and physical risks of sexual involvement including a solid discussion of STDs. We just need to get the teachers teaching it. And to put the record straight, national studies from both liberal and conservative groups show that degree of religiousness or values have a huge impact in delaying sexual involvement. And lastly, parents have the most influence of all on teen sexual behavior - because that is where values are taught day in and day out. If you think that school health instruction will change pregnancy and STD rates, think again - health teachers only have a 4% impact on sexual behavior.

Just what we need | 9:46 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Humans got by for 2.87 million years without educators and obstetricians teaching sex to children.

But, no more!

Today, we're apparently more lame and stupid than at any time during the last nearly 3 million years. So we need to turn over our parental functions to educators and obstetricians.

It must be because they've done such a good job of it over the past 50 years.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.