Talk:Sex education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sex education has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

[edit] Source request

no abstinence-only program has ever been shown to reduce teen sexual activity, pregnancy, or STD's. In fact, teens who recieve abstinence-only education are 1/3 more likely than their counterparts, who did receive information about protection, to get pregnant and contract STD's

Care to back that up with sources 128.172.135.61? I'm willing to accept the first part (unless someone can find some research to the contrary), but the second part ("1/3 more likely") sounds way too authorative to be NPOV without some serious generally-accepted research to back it up.

I agree. Let's get some real statistics, from both perspectives. Here is a start:

- Omegatron 16:09, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of contraception

It might be interesting to point out cases of abuse of contraception, family planning, etc. For example, after the Indonesia genocide of the East Timorese people, the Indonesia government was practicing forced contraception on East Timorese women, so they couldn't repopulate the native East Timorese culture. The UN even gave Indonesia a huge grant for its "family planning" efforts. More information on this can be had at <http://pilger.carlton.com/timor/genocide>. It might be interesting to document this kind of stuff somewhere on Wikipedia. --Jizzbug

Yes, it should be both in the history of Indonesia / East Timor article and in a separate "forced reproductive control" article, which could also cover sterilization etc. Perhaps a better title could be found. I don't think it belongs here. -Eloquence

[edit] Removal of immoral practices

Why did you remove immoral practices? --user:Ed+Poor

I explained it on your talk page, Ed. You may find those practices immoral. Your particular religion may preach that they are. Mine might, too. That doesn't change the fact that they are both legal in most states and that many people don't find them immoral.

The fact that an immoral practice is legal is irrelevant: it remains immoral.
I changed "immoral" to "regarded by conservatives as immoral" (good catch).

You set up the sentence in a way that implies that Sex education encourages the acceptance of immorality. This is hardly NPOV.

I think I have shown in the new version of the article that some sex education encourages the acceptance of immorality. If I've made an error, please point it out.

YOu seem to be fairly intelligent, so I am at a loss to understand why you even had to ask.JHK

Had to ask what?

[edit] NPOV

Rather than simply cut what seemed to be a pretty poorly written and biased article, I simply have tried to restore some NPOV. I do hope that there are people out there who have actually researched pedagogy and educational practices and can develop this into an informative article.

Thank you. You have always been one of my best editors. By working together, we can accomplish a lot.

My changes: I removed some editorializing language, and in order to counter the criticism, I added something on why people would support sex ed. I also cut this:

break down students' natural modesty and

because it is doubly wrong: children are not "naturally" modest, and the purpose of sex ed is not to break down this modesty.

Some sex ed practices were specifically designed to counter modesty, such as requiring girls to put condoms over cucumbers. Try reading Wendy Shalit's "Return to Modesty". --Ed

==USA: Sex is controversial Axel -- they are controversial because a large chunk of the US population finds sex itself to be controversial, instead of a normal human function.

That's a false dichotomy. Sex is, indeed a normal human function, but immorality is not normal. Since a huge proportion of Americans advocate immorality, sex is controversial. --Ed

Because "normal" is a statistical term, sex is not a normal function, except for maybe a few people in history. What is the figure for that proportion? If it forms a plurality, then it's not immorality. lysdexia 11:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It gets wrapped up in religious codes, and then the separation of church and state, and then we have (as with alcohol use among teens) a society with puritanical undertones that most civilized countries find amusing.

Another false dichotomy. The alternative to immorality is not puritanism but morality. I also find puritanism amusing, but immorality is no joking matter. --Ed

This is a strawman; the above did not say it was an alternative. Another alternative is amorality. lysdexia 11:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sex and Alcohol are banned, adult things, so kids often are drawn to them for the thrill and to prove they are adults.

Sex should not be a banned thing; it's actually a wonderful thing, but only between husband and wife. As for alcohol, some groups ban it for all people (adults as well as children); some others introduce children to it gradually, teaching its responsble use.

This is really the essence of morality: the responsible use of sex. -- Ed

Define "but only" and explain its supposed reference to wonderfulness. lysdexia 11:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So, instead of kids who think that being productive, successful citizens who take an interest in their society makes one an adult, we have a bunch of kids who drink too much, have irresponsible sex, and still live at home after high school expecting mom and dad to foot the bills. My opinion, which is why it's not going into the article.JHK

Morality aims to produce kids who think that being productive, successful citizens who take an interest in their society makes one an adult, as you so eloquently put it. Sex ed which promotes immorality contrbutes a bunch of kids who drink too much, have irresponsible sex, and still live at home after high school expecting mom and dad to foot the bills. -- Ed Poor

Religion is something that should not interfere with Sex-Ed as everyone's beliefs are their own. It should be treated in the same way as religious education: if parents do not want their children to take the classes, then they should not take the classes. Furthermore, using the term 'pro-immorality' is about as appropriate as someone saying 'pro-ignorance,' as it is just a not-so-subtle form of propaganda that isn't convicning anyone. Let me review some things: Sex outside of marriage does not harm anyone, so long as people who take part in it are educated about the risks, and that is the whole point of sex-ed. Remember that you may have strong opinions about the topic but a large amount of people believe that sexual abstinence is the worst form of sexual perversion, and that opinion is just as valid as yours.

You also seem to claim in the above statement the kids who have sex are all immoral, irresponsible substance-abusers, a statement so past being a generalisation it's simply a complete lie. And please stop using the phrase 'immorality' and use something more accurate. Imagine others using the word 'puritan' to describe your opinions. It really grates.

-- Anon

[edit] Reverts, more NPOV

I un-reverted Axel's revert, while including his incremental change. Please do not censor articles, if you disagree. Edit them to make them NPOV. --Ed Poor

I'm kind of new to Wikipedia, so forgive my ignorance here, but how can the wholesale use of morality/immorality in an article be considered NPOV. Danny

It's easy, provided you say whose definition of morality/immorality you're using. I referred specifically to the conservative view. Ed Poor

I agree with Danny, however, that the phrasing needs some work to move it further toward the goal of NPOV. -- April

March 2nd version is pretty well-balanced, lacking only a rebuttal to Axel's strengthening of the pro-immorality side. But it's close enough to NPOV at this point that I'll leave it for a while. User:Ed Poor

Don't mischaracterize the pro-Sex ed side as "pro-immorality". Some people find it immoral to deny crucial and potentially life-saving information to teenagers. AxelBoldt

Don't mischararacterize the pro-immorality side as the pro-Sex ed side. Everyone wants sex education; the controversy is over the curriculum, not whether there should be any educatation at all. Furthermore, it is crucial and potentially life-saving to tell teenagers not to indulge in premarital sex. -- User:Ed Poor

[edit] Liberals see sex education as control?

SR, if liberals see the sex education issue in terms of "who controls the body", then say so. I don't want to censor you -- any more than I want to be censored myself -- but your reframing didn't actually clear anything up. Please try again. If you need help, ask for it (that's what I do). User:Ed Poor

Ed, I reverted for two reasons: first, I do not think I failed, and second, your objection seemed to be only to the first sentence. If you can explain your objection cogently, we can work on improving the first lin eof my contribution. But what follows is certainly better organized and clearer, and more NPOV, than what was there previously.

As for the first line, I am not a liberal and I do not think it is liberals who claim that what is at stake in sex ed is control over the body; I think this is an objective statement that provides an objective point of view from which one can compare and contrast conservative and liberal positions. Your characterization of the conservative position is that people should not engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex, and that people whould not have sex before they are married. "sex" is a physical act. Please explain to me how your description of a particular morality is not about contol over this physical act? By the way, I am not suggesting that there aren't non-physical REASONS for controling the body, or controling it in particular ways. I am just making a very non-controversial observation, that the article includes a discussion of what people should and should not do with their bodies. I look forward to your response as we work towards improving this one sentence.

in the meantime, since you seem to have no objection to the remainder of the revision, please do not vandalize it. I did not cut ANYTHING of substance that you wrote -- I merely added pertinant information, and reorganized it so there was less confusing jumping from one perspective and topic to another, SR

Ed, I appreciate the way yo are revising while working with my contribution. One request: You rewrote some of my contribution thus:

As seen by liberals, what is at stake in sex education is control over the body; it is thus an area where politics and questions of morality necessarily intersect.

and

Liberals cast traditional morality as involving control over the individual will.

Could you now include two more sentences, that begin "As seen by conservatives," and "Conservatives cast?" If you could do so -- at the same level of abstraction as the "liberal" sentences, you will have accomplished two things. First, the characterization of the two positions will be more symmetrical and balanced. Second, we would have more information about the conservative position.

Thanks, SR

Ed, you are incorrect in stating that liberals advocate individual mores over socially imposed ones; many liberals actually favor socially determined ethics to predominate over individual moral codes in a legal and societal context. Please do not oversimplify "conservative" and "liberal" by representing your view as the totality of the former, and your idea of the opposite position as the latter. Actual positions tend to be considerably more complex. -- April

SR & April, thank you for your constructive criticism. I am going to give it a rest -- for a few hours or days. It's an even bigger controversy than I first thought. By the way, I originally started the page because I had begun a compendium of educational issues.

To do: clearly and correctly describe the major viewpoints on sexual education. As far as I know, the only viewpoints of importance are the conservatives (champions of morality) and the liberals (opponents of traditional morality).

Wrong as usual, Ed. Why must you constantly oversimplify things to one or two basic ideas when there are obviously hundreds of ideas held by many very educated people over hundreds of years? It's the same thing you tried to do to the evolution/creation business, and it's just as idiotic here as there. To the extent that certain groups of more-or-less related positions on the issue can be categorized and described, that's fine. But let's not pretend that any of us even knows what all the positions are, much less that we understand them all. I, for one, don't care to associate myself with either of the positions your describe here as the primary options. --Lee Daniel Crocker

I'm not an idiot. I'm a smart imbecile, as Moe would say. --User:Ed Poor

[edit] Morality

Morality entails proper sexual behavior, which (traditionally?) means no sex except between husband and wife. This is the conservative viewpoint.

Does some group of people see morality as constraining them? Do they seek release from that restraint? If so, who are these people? Who are their leaders? The article should include this information.

No one controls me. I follow traditional moral rules willingly. Does that sound unusual? Is it only the Unification Church which shares my moral views and not conservatives, too?

Help me out, here. --User:Ed Poor

No, Ed, you're not alone. In general, most Evangelical Christians would share your viewpoint, as would people of many other faiths. FWIW, as things are now they seem fairly NPOV. —Eric

Ed, I appreciate the tone of your request. For me, the important thing is this: whether you personally understand it or not, the article must reflect the fact that there are many people for whom conservatives are not champions of morality but far from it champions of immorality; that their notions of "proper sexual behavior" such as compusory heterosexuality and the prohibition against premarital sex are immoral; form whom sexual freedom is the real morality. Such people do not see morality as constraining them, because they consider themselves to be moral. But in what passes for conventional conservative morality, they do see other people -- those who would advocate conservative morality, and who would use the state to enforce their conservative morality by making it illegal to distribute condoms in high-school or by making abortion illegal, or by making it impossible for medicaid to cover abortions -- as constraining them.

Compulsory heterosexuality sounds like rape to me. Or were you thinking of the Margaret Atkins novel where all women are men's sex and breeding slaves? If there's anyone who calls traditional/conservative morality "immoral" please name them (or their group); do you mean liberals? radical lesbians? Who?
Please don't just complain about what I've left out. Simply include it. Who are the advocates of "sexual freedom"? Why do they call it the "real morality"? I bet you know the answers to these questions, and I'd like to see you put them in this article -- or another such as sexual morality -- your call.
Are there people who would use the state to enforce their moral views? Please list them, both conservative and liberal. Please note that this is not a rhetorical question: I am not asking who they are as an indirect way of saying there aren't any. I really want this information included in the article. Despite what JHKemp may think, I really want balance in the article. Please continue to help me balance it. -- User:Ed Poor

You may follow traditional moral rules willingly, but these rules nevertheless limit what you can and cannot do with your body, and these rules by your own admission are not of your own making. Whether they come from the community, or perhaps you think they come from God, they come from outside of you, and they limit what you do. My point is not that this is wrong (although many have argued that it is); my point is simply that this is one dimension of your morality; that it is not a dimension of all moralities; and that an encyclopedia should be clear about different kinds of moralities and not simply assert or assume that there is one kind. SR

[edit] New introduction

Very much like the new intro! The section I've set aside as "Practical consequences" needs serious work, I fear - I think it should be totally rewritten, with references for the principal positions. I'll have a go now and again, but multiple contributions are obviously needed for balance. -- April

It'd be groovy if we could have some sort of brief "history" section (perhaps before the morality stuff), explaining when and how sex ed developed out of biology & became a separate subject. Development and acceptance of birth control, etc. would probably figure heavily. Any serious exploration might wind up being a little bit nation-specific, which is why I suggest a short summary. (Clearly I don't have the background to do this, which is why I'm posting here.) -D

[edit] Changed human being to fetus

I changed "human being" back to fetus in the opening, because 'fetus" is the correct English word for a human being before birth. Ed, are you suggesting that this word, fetus, be removed from the English language?

I recognize that there is a vigorous debate in the United states over the rights of fetuses. The Supreme Court in Roe V. Wade decided that fetuses have the right to life, but that this right clashes with a woman's right to privacy, and that the law must recognize a compromise between these competing rights. But the place to enter into this discussion is an article on abortion and US law, or abortion and education (we discussed abortion in my 11th grade health class, but not in "sex ed" as such).

In any case, fetus is an English word just like "neutral, "point," and "view" are, are it is being used properly in this article, SR

Lets stick to neutral terminology and only state the biological classifications here. It is inherently non-NPOV to say that a fetus or embryo is a developing baby -- especially in an article on sex education. --maveric149

Completely agreeing, I'd add that additional caution IMHO is required even when using "scientifical" terms, since scientists are not necessarily frank from external conditionings, and their interpretation might be (but not necessarily is) reflecting cultural positions. It has to be underlined that currently in many of western european countries special "scientific" commissions have been instituted, called bioethical commissions, for purposes that is better appropriate not to discuss here. Essentially, let's try to fly higher than eventual "scientific" non-NPOVs too, so might be better to diligently add, when in doubt, how other scientific schools call the element we are describing and how a honest common sense would consider it in an ideal common culture.

[edit] Liberal view inaccurate

A couple of comments on the article:

The paragraph presenting the "liberal" view is, to my view, inaccurate and somewhat unfair. Firstly, why are "informed" and "healthy and constructive" in quotes in the main article? It is already clear that the paragraph is repeating the supposed claims of a side in the debate over appropriate sex education, and they clearly believe that it is possible for teenagers to make informed choices. The quotes clearly indicate the article's scepticism towards this viewpoint.

Secondly, I have a big problem with this passage:

Those with this view tend to see the political question as whether society or the individual should dictate sexual mores. Sexual education may sometimes be seen as providing individuals with the knowledge necessary to liberate themselves from socially organized sexual oppression, just as often though, it is simply put in terms of the good to be achieved in public health.

Whether one likes it or not, the laws and courts of virtually all Western countries make it clear that it's the individual that decides sexual mores. If you're beyond the age of consent, and all parties consent, you can do whatever you like, with pretty much whomever you like - however, the consequences of your actions are also your responsibility. I would therefore argue that the supposed "liberal" view is simply acknowledging this reality, rather than advocating a change to the status quo as this seems to imply.

The second sentence there implies that "liberal" sex education has a covert "pro-teenage sex" and "pro-promiscuity" agenda. That seriously misrepresents the mainstream "liberal" view, which is reasonably accurately described in the second part of the sentence, and is sincerely held by most.

I intend to revise the paragraph with the above in mind, but rather than getting into an edit war, does anybody want to justify the paragraph in its present form? --Robert Merkel

Go ahead and work your magic Robert! --maveric149

Robert Merkel, before you go ahead and edit, please consider two things: first, there are laws that regulate the sexuality of informed and consenting adults -- the Supreme Court has upheld anti-sodomy laws in Georgia, for example.

Second, the section you are questioning is explicit in contrasting the individual to society, not to the state. EVEN if the US government, and even if all the states' governments, abolished all laws regulating sexuality, the fact is that there would still be strong social and cultural forces acting on individuals.

The law may recognize that individuals have the right to choose. But the choices available to people, and the considerations people make, consciously and unconsciously when making choices, and the things people simply never even consider to be choices, are not necessarily decided by the government or by any transparent and conscious public process. Just as we live in air and fish swim in water, culture is by its nature something taken for granted and seldom recognized let alone questioned. An important part of any liberal (in the old, Enlightenment, sense) education is to learn to recognize and question the cultural and social forces at work. This is especially important when it comes to the body and sexuality -- at least, according to some people. The article must recognize that some people advocate this. Even if you do not agree with these assumptions, or agree that they provide legitimate justification for sexual education, they are an important point of view and the article has a responsibility to inform others of this point of view.

Do NOT cut this phrase: "the knowledge necessary to liberate themselves from socially organized sexual oppression" and do NOT misrepresent it as being pro-teenage sex (although some do advocate that). Do you really think that what istaught to Jr. High School students is meant to be used only in Jr. High School? Aren't there people who learned algebra and English grammar as children, yet rely on what they learned today? Indeed, we learn many things in school that have no immediate practical consequences, yet that serve us as adults. This is as true of sex-education as it is of anything else.

If you think there are other liberal positions, by all means ADD them. But do not cut something that you either do not understand or do not agree with, please, SR

But as worded, it carries the wrong implication IMHO. Liberal education, to me, is all about giving people the tools and knowledge to make up their own minds. The way it reads now, to me, goes further than that and says liberal education actively encourages people to dump the "conventional norms". People exposed to liberal education might do so, but in my view that's because the knolwedge they've gained has freed them to decide that they believe the conventional norms are bunk.

Additionally, at a secondary education level, to the best of my knowledge most "comprehensive" sex-ed programs share remarkably consistent goals with the abstinence crowd - to convince teenagers not to have sex right now, essentially. Where they differ is that they also a) provide information on how to avoid potential problems if they do have sex, and b) point out that some people are gay or bi and that, whatever your religious leaders say, it's perfectly legal (in most places, anyway), doctors don't regard it as a disease, and the majority of gay people live happy, unremarkable lives, so just let them be.

I appreciate your clarification. I still think you misunderstand two things (if the fault is in my writing, of course I welcome your help clarifying it -- but I want to be clear about what I am trying to say first).

The first issue is, "what do we mean by conventional norms?" Are they norms that most people happen to agree on? Or are they norms that are accepted because so many people support? If you mean the former, then your position (i.e. your criticism of what I wrote) is fair. But I tend towards the latter formulation. So if someone truly "makes up their own minds" then what they are doing is NOT following convention, even if they make up their minds to be heterosexual and wait until marriage for sex (or whatever the convention is). Human beings are conscious actors, so the reasons they do what they do are just as important as what they do. You can do something because you are following convention, or you can do the same thing for reasons of your own. This difference matters. So even when I accept your definition of a liberal education, I still see it as consistent with "liberating ones's self from societal norms," because however you act it will not be because something is a societal norm.

I would argue a better phrase is "liberating one's self from blindly following societal norms".

The second issue is the need to distinguish between the current practices within sexual education (at the secondary level in the US), and the debates and the political conflicts surrounding such practices. I do agree with your characterization of the general practice, and it is important that the article too be clear about this. BUT, this practice evolved in the context of highly politicized debates that feature a variety of extreme positions, and the article should also describe these debates.

Do these two points make sense to you? If I am clearer now perhaps you can see a way to incorporate your important and valid points without completely erasing what I still think is also an important and valid point, SR

Yes, they do make sense. It seems though that few are prepared to argue for sex education openly based on liberal principles, whereas there are plenty of people prepared to argue for either "comprehensive" (a considerable misnomer), abstinence-only, or "leave it to the parents", and the effectiveness debate seems to be conducted entirely around teen STD and pregnancy rates. I'll try to edit the main article based on this discussion. --Robert Merkel

[edit] Use of the word censorship

Ed, your use of the word "censorship" is less than accurate. Your text was changed by somebody, and the change was extensively justified, see above. Then you come back the next day, revert the change without engaging in any discussion and cry "arbitrary censorship". Of course I reverted your change. You consistently expect others to discuss changes in Talk, but refuse to do so yourself. Stop using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. AxelBoldt

I must apologize, Axel. I had just spent 30 minutes copy-editing and revising the text, when I foundered on an edit conflict. Then I made two mistakes: I failed to copy my changes (I copied the old text!), then I assumed you were censoring me. Upon reflection, I finally realized that you hadn't even seen my revisions (due to the edit conflict). Please accept my apology. -- User:Ed Poor

[edit] Teen pregnancy

IMHO, indipendently from which appreciation it may collect in its society, a campaign to prevent teen pregnancy cannot be considered neutral at current regard, given that other positions do exist that never would do anything to "prevent" (or would propose different solutions) and have consequently to be regarded as a reciprocal counterpart of mentioned one. I think it is redundant to say that I personally might eventually agree or not with that campaign but nevertheless I'd strictly have to forget my beliefs here, so I would essentially consider that the stats provided by one of the... "parts" cannot be reported as a "source" (only IMHO obviously), but perhaps better rendered as a description of what the related culture assumes as a meaningful datum. The risk of assertiveness inside the statement is - beyond the intentions, no doubt - too high. For the same reason I would like to read who made 1977 study, in order to have a fair information about. As a general rule, finally, stats are to be read together with their details and references; better we would stay if we could balance with studies by other groups/cultures.

Also, I understand this argument is extremely vivid in US, but the article is not Sex education in US, so I hope that the "local" deep reflections of these last days can advantageously produce some more content for the general article too.

Someone had added:

In answer to the criticism of conservatives, a US review, "Emerging Answers," by the National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy examined 250 studies of sex education programs. The conclusion of this review was that "The overwhelming weight of evidence shows that sex education that discusses contraception does not increase sexual activity."

So I looked on their website for more information, figuring that what's good for another wikipedian is good enough for me. --Ed

[edit] Schools

I've removed the reference to school in the first sentence of the article. Some people who oppose sex education in the schools will often look elsewhere for the subject to be taught in a manner more consistent with their own beliefs. Alternatively, they may provide the education at home. Even some child abusers like to call their activity sex education. Eclecticology

[edit] Global perspectives needed

HI Anders --

I think we just need to add more info about the rest of the world. The problem with this and other such articles is that they're written with a particular American-based hobbyhorse in mind. IMHO, we can either expand these articles to include the rest of the world (something the initial author doesn't seem to be willing to work on) and make them more general and more NPOV, or we can let them exist, perhaps encouraging the opinion that this is an American wikipedia, and not an English-language wikipedia. JHK

Where else should we cover? In Australia, the debate in favour of comprehensive sex ed is pretty much over, and I'd always assumed that the same was true in the UK and and continental Europe. One aspect we should probably cover is the huge impact AIDS has had on sex ed - it certainly revolutionalised things here in Oz. Perhaps the education campaigns in third-world countries affected by AIDS? --Robert Merkel

For sure, in continental Italy the debate is not over at all; I wouldn't swear it is in Spain and in Portugal. Just to keep to Mediterranean area, I am trying to figure how do they handle it in Algerie rather than... - do we need to continue?

Yes, AIDS too should be a topic.

[edit] Splitting the article

I propose that we break off the US portion of the debate into a separate article, such as Sex education debate in the United States, leaving a link to it on this page. That way (a) those familiar with the debate in other nations can add appropriate articles, and (b) this article can be reserved for the definition and any international issues, such as the worldwide activities of Planned Parenthood and worldwide religious opposition. Opinions? -- April

I agree with breaking off sex ed in the U.S. It's just too biased towards immorality (by which I mean the do-your-own-thing, anything goes position advocated by "liberals.")

Don't hope for one second that by creating a US only page, the liberal position will get less coverage. The liberals are Americans too. AxelBoldt

I'd like the liberal position to get 75% to 90% of the coverage. I just want it labeled as such. Fair enough? User:Ed Poor

But, seriously, April, we do need to organize the debate better. I confess to failing to distinguish between (A) what I believe to be morally right and (B) what various groups and other attributable sources advocate. Although the world would be better off following what I believe, I concede that the Wikipedia will be better off labeling the various major viewpoints according to their proponents. Can you help with this? User:Ed Poor

Anyone working at that section might want to include the following which I just pulled from the Teenage pregnancy article.:

Some studies supporting abistance only education: Abstinence Education Programs' Effectiveness, FAQ of the Title V Abstinence Education Program with statistics inside, Abstinence: Numbers Don't Lie, Condoms, Clinics, or Abstinence.

Some studies denouncing ab-only education: Adolescence and Abstinence Fact Sheet, The Decline in Teen Pregnancy Rates: A Result of Abstinence and Contraception, Not Abstinence-Only Programs, Study: Abstinence pledges may trigger risky sexual behavior.

I pulled them from that article, because they were duplicating the efforts of the US debate section of this one. I do also support April's suggestion of break that part out. I think we should make sure that US-centric information be pulled out and clearly marked. --Ahc 22:09, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abstinence only education article

I think that the phenomenon of 'abstinence-only education' is important enough to have its own article. Much of the controversy parts of this article could be moved into that page. This would not only make this article shorter but it would give readers a clearer picture of the opposing views. Right now readers have to sort through a lot of stuff to get at the issues. Cazort 01:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Currently, the U.S. section only talks about the debate; it doesn’t give any information about what education is actually available in American schools. What percentage of schools give abstinence-only and what proportion offer advice on contraception? What are the differences between state and private schools, are there age-specific guidelines for curricula, are there opt-out clauses for religious-run schools, etc.? I assume there are differences between the various states as well. Are there any American educators out there? Or even someone who has recently been through the American school system? Fionah 07:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merged articles

I merged the two articles before checking the Talk page, sorry. I think having a single article makes more sense because there is a scientific debate about sex ed approaches which exceeds national borders, and previously this was only in the "Sex ed in the US" article. When we just cover the political debates about sex-ed per country, I don't think we'll get so much information as to justify separate articles. I'll also work now on cutting down some of the somewhat lengthy/wordy prose which makes the article a bit hard to stomach. --Eloquence

You were right to merge IMO. It's unrealistic to envisage ana rticle for each ccountry, and no reason to give the US special treatment. Furthermore, it only justified Ed' unreasonable attitude. -- Tarquin 23:14 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

Don't knock Ed too hard, he has learned a lot about NPOV since when he worked on this page ;-) --Eloquence

[edit] Biased External Links

While this article is NPOV, the external links brought at the end of it aren't. They both support only one side of the debate, and, furthermore, the second of them is a parody site. While I support this POV, I nevertheless believe these links should be removed, or other links, supporting the opposite side, should be added. Volland 12:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also regarding this topic, I have added links regarding the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or not to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth section. It was POV-unbalanced when including only the current view of the heavily lobbied APA. Enviroknot

[edit] Use or abuse?

'Use' is a statement of fact. 'Abuse' is a pov. Unless you can say who thought it was an abuse, let's stick to saying it was use. Guttlekraw 00:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be having difficulty with NPOV, as well as understanding context. Without citing sources, you altered a direct quote in the section, "Scientific study of sex education". This text referenced an article by Botvin et al. You altered the text to read, Botvin et al. found that school based programmes to prevent recreational drug use during junior high school (what the program advocates believed to be drug abuse, although many other jurisdictions including the French and British legal systems do not agree). This is entirely your point of view, and in fact introduces several errors into the article, including the modification of a direct quote which is considered very bad form on your part. According to PubMed, Botvin's area of research is drug abuse prevention, not "recreational drug use". Further, the study in question (Botvin et al. "Long-term follow-up results of a randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a white middle-class population". JAMA 1995; 273: 1106-1112) does not use the term recreational drug use. They use the term, drug abuse prevention, as does DiCenso's study which references Botvin. In point of fact, you changed a direct quote from the study (Botvin et al found that school based programmes to prevent drug abuse during junior high school (ages 12-14 years) resulted in important and durable reductions...) as quoted by DiCenso in "Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials". When I restored the actual quote that you had changed, you accused me of vandalism on my talk page. You also failed to substantiate your claim that, ...program advocates believed to be drug abuse, although many other jurisdictions including the French and British legal systems do not agree. You introduced this argument into this article. That argument is not supported by the context of either study, nor have you provided any sources for this claim. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Viriditas | Talk 03:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are clearly very committed to you point of view. I cannot be bothered to pull out which statutes in UK and French law allow use of alcohol by 14 year olds, but they are there for anyone to see. Clearly the program advocates believed that alchol use by 14 year olds is abuse, clearly there are others who beleive that not all use of alcohol by 14 year olds is abuse. If you can look at the facts and still keep your fingers in your ears singing 'la-la-la-I'm-not-listening' then fine. I'll leave this to someone else to deal with. Guttlekraw 16:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please read and study the NPOV policy. You are not allowed to change direct quotes to suit your own personal bias. You are welcome to add new content or sections as long as it is topical or adheres to the recommended guidelines and policies. If you are interested in recreational drug use, you could experiment with NPOV by contributing to that article. --Viriditas | Talk 19:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't wish to get into this particular debate, but I was hoping that someone that is involved might be able to improve the reference in the article itself. Currently the only reference to "Botvin et al" in the article is at the end of the quote. Making it quite hard to varify the quote, since the citation is not clear (unless I missed something). Can we please improve the reference so readers don't have to read this discussion to find the original source? It seems to be this should be done by someone familiar with the resource. --Ahc 05:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I'll do it tonight. Thanks for the heads up. --Viriditas | Talk 06:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Illustration

I would like to introduce a historical aspect to this discussion, part of which would be an illustration of a young man asking his father for advice on dealing with his suitors. Here is the image, any thoughts? Haiduc 00:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Youth seeking his father's advice on love
Miniature illustration to the Haft Awrang of Jami, in the story A Father Advises his Son About Love See Sufi outlook on male love
Freer and Sackler Galleries, The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

[edit] Mini-debate trimmed

This section on LGBT:

"Opponents of abstinence-only education would say that this viewpoint is religiously-based and thus has no validity in public education; and furthermore, that sexual orientation (as opposed to behavior) cannot be learned and is not a choice, so exposure to homosexuality could only cause a lesbian, or gay person to be more self-accepting and could not cause a straight person to “turn” lesbian or gay. The assertion that “homosexuality is not a choice” is contradicted by most sources in the medical and scientific communities1 2."

It looks to me like a little debate on homosexuality. I trimmed and precised it to the relevant issues. The question of whether homosexuality is or is not a choice is surely better covered elsewhere. Irrespective of whether it is a choice, homosexuals are affected by the decisions of educators and politicians with respect to sex education. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moderate POV Fix, 2nd Paragraph 3.1 "GLBT..."

Just to let you know...I did some NPOVing of what appeared to be moderate point-of-view in the second paragraph of what is currently 3.1 (the GLBT paragraph).

[edit] Improvement Drive

The articles on Teenage pregnancy and on Flirting has been nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. To support the nomination, vote for it Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive#Nominations here.--Fenice 07:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What the hell is this...?!

"Keeping children in the dark about sex isn’t going to stop them from partaking in the act 2. Parents seem to think that if they don’t teach their teenagers about sex, they won’t have it, which just isn’t true at all 3. The Netherlands reports low pregnancy rates among its teenagers; their approach has been what are known as social interventions 4(six concepts listed above). A school-based education youth development program “remains the most efficient way of reaching the greatest number of young people before they become sexually active 5.” The United States has been focusing on abstinence only programs. Studies have shown that while teenagers may sign up for “chastity pledges” and promise to delay sexual intercourse until marriage, this just isn’t the case. This group of teenagers run the risk of not using condoms or other methods of contraceptives, and usually has levels of sexually transmitted diseases as high as other teenagers 6."

What kind of biased crap is that? I am too lazy to change that right now but somebody should. Whoever wrote that is not only a moronic liberal, but also obviously never passed second grade seeing as they never learned to be grammatically correct. Silly liberals...

[edit] Sex pairing

An unknown user removed the following from the article:

Sex pairing

There is also the idea that among other things, school curricula ought to, in addition to the more widespread tradition of phys-ed class, include a sex-ed class which would give the opportunity to students to engage in sexual activity which they may otherwise neglect prior to graduation.

One idea involves the pairing up of individuals by a central authority, another would see students select their own partners using computers.

This idea has, however, met with a healthy degree of skepticism. So far, reactions to the plan have been unenthusiastic. Overall, it is deemed to be a worthless addition to the otherwise sober discussion of school curricula.

I'm not sure that this is necessarily worthy of inclusion, particulalrly without a reference, but it seemed to me that it should at least have been discussed via the talk page. Has anyone encountered or heard of this phenomenon outside of this page? --Badger151 02:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"...which would give the opportunity to students to engage in sexual activity..." You're saying you don't see that section as blatant wishful-thinking vandalism? Powers ^T 23:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

I did a copyedit on the article, and I am removing the weasel words tag. I didn't see anything that seems to apply, aand there are no comments that seem to indicate why it was added. Please discuss here if you feel differently. Atom 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/x/Talk%7ESex_education_3c38.html"

Category: Old requests for peer review