An article and a poll came out (today & yesterday respectively) that got me thinking about this. The article talks about how NC's move towards comprehensive sex ed is starting right now with the start of this school year. And the poll could mean the end to this move towards comprehensive sex ed.

http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/dandaman6007/2010/9/3/Comprehensive-Sex-Education-Coming-To-NC-but-Not-Without-Challanges

Quote :

"This bill replaces abstinence-only sex education with a more comprehensive reproductive health and safety program that promotes abstinence as the best method for avoiding pregnancy and STI’s, but also teaches about contraception, safe sex, and healthy relationships. State Senator Ellie Kinnaird, one of the bills supporters, commented saying: I am pleased that the NC Legislature was able to pass the Healthy Youth Act last session. However, it was not without great difficulty. Several religious groups and some Republican Senators objected to broadening the information available to students. But on the other side, we had many allies who worked the halls just as hard to make sure that students have accurate, complete information about sexual health. I believe that this information now available to students will show up in statistics down the road with fewer pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Having accurate, complete information will help others to make better decisions to protect themselves and avoid a direction that could have penalties for years to come. Each NC school district is responsible for adopting a policy that includes information about both abstinence and contraception, but in some areas the process of implementing the new learning standards has been rocky. While an overwhelming 91.8% of North Carolina parents want the more detailed education, school systems seem to operate in fear of a very vocal minority that opposes effective sexuality education. Talking about contraceptives – just the very basics of what they are, how they work and how effective they are – is proving to be the most controversial aspect of the law. This is frustrating beyond belief for advocates like myself who understand that educating teens about how to protect themselves is a critical step in addressing our teen pregnancy crisis. ... The law itself finally provides North Carolina educators the chance to use effective sexuality education to address the state’s disturbingly high teen pregnancy rate."

The comprehensive sex ed bill (HB 88) starts this school year (although some schools may try and oppose it). The article says NC has about 19,000 pregnant teens a year right now. The Healthy Youth Act wasn't a full step towards comprehensive sex ed, but given the political opposition it was a solid step in the right direction. And if this poll is right, it could be a 1 year only thing because not a single GOP representative in the General Assembly voted for this bill - in fairness 4 dems voted against it too and ought to be voted against themselves - they are Braxton, Brisson, Cole, and Spear (NC is also the only southern state that hasn't done an anti-gay marriage constitution ban b/c even though the GOP brings up a bill to initiate an amendment every year, with the dems in control they can bury it in 4 committees so that it never makes it out, b/c if it came up for a vote the dems don't have the spine to stop it):

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/gop-up-on-nc-generic-ballot.html

Quote :

"If that holds through November the GOP will almost definitely take control of the General Assembly."

[Edited on September 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM. Reason : .]

9/3/2010 10:14:23 PM

I just don't understand how or why people oppose giving sexually mature, though not mentally mature, teenagers accurate information about sex, pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, contraception, and disease prevention.

That'd be like if you passed out gasoline to half the kids, matches to the other half, told them not to use either and then just hoped for the best.

9/3/2010 10:20:17 PM

^I guess as a parent some people want the right to be able to tell their kids about this shit on their own. Some kids mature WAY faster and others are a lot slower to develop, so a child that is hitting puberty early probably needs to be talked to much sooner than a kid that is late developing sexually. God forbid parents be able to decide what their children should be exposed to, and at what age. I would hope they know their children better than DPI and a curriculum book. Not that I don't think that kids don't need that info, or that abstinence only is very narrow minded. But as a parent, I would prefer to have to deal with that uncomfortable situation when it arises on my own, not at some arbitrary age that is determined by the state.

Forgot to mention that some parents may have very strict religious views on when this shit should be told to kids, and what they should be exposed to. I have no idea what Islam and other eastern religions say on the matter, but I know some of the more conservative churches are against that kinda thing. Again, not that it their kids don't need to know, but religious belief is apparently a valid reason for parents to withhold medical care deemed unclean, and other "science" that is beneficial to children, so how is this any different?

[Edited on September 3, 2010 at 10:41 PM. Reason : ]

9/3/2010 10:38:43 PM

^My understanding is that this move towards CSE included parental opt out, and still teaching all about abstinence until marriage first, but tacks on a follow up saying that if you're going to ignore that advice at least do it safely & this is the info you need to know to do that.

The bill also said that the teachings, provided the 'rents don't opt their kids out, must be "objective and based upon scientific research that is peer reviewed and accepted by professionals and credentialed experts in the field of sexual health education." Basically it gives 'rents the option of having their kids proper health ed (with an opt out), and that is what the NC GOP unanimously opposed.

[Edited on September 3, 2010 at 11:20 PM. Reason : .]

9/3/2010 11:18:09 PM

When I first read about this it resolved some confusion I've had for a long time. I went to a public school in NC and didn't get abstinence-only sex ed, so I always wondered what everyone was fussing about. Now I gather that Guilford County Schools has had a much more comprehensive sex ed program than most of the rest of the state for a long time now. The only thing we didn't get that's in the new program was info on planned parenthood and the morning-after pill, the latter of which I'm not sure even existed at the time (in this country).

And, unless I'm mistaken, the big three -- homosexuality, outright abortion, and masturbation -- are still off the table. (I admit I've never understood the masturbation one being off-limits, given its relative safety and the fact that everyone figures that out on their own anyway.)

Quote :

"I guess as a parent some people want the right to be able to tell their kids about this shit on their own."

Absolutely, and as Supplanter pointed out those parents can still opt out. Hopefully, though, this education will catch the parents who are too apathetic or scared or stupid or whatever to deal with their kids on their own.

9/4/2010 12:57:58 AM

"I admit I've never understood the masturbation one being off-limits, given its relative safety"

I doubt if safety concern has anything to do with political opposition to it.

Fri Sep 3, 2:06 pm ET
Tea Party Express hopes to repeat Alaska win in Delaware Senate primary
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/tea-party-hopes-to-repeat-alaska-win-in-delaware-senate-primary

Quote :

""The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust," she said. "The reason that you don't tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because again it is not addressing the issue. … You're just gonna create somebody who is, I was gonna say, toying with his sexuality. Pardon the pun.""

Statements like that ignores the fact that socially conservative states with repressed attitudes towards all this stuff are the ones with the shorter marriages and higher rates of teenage mothers because of those very attitudes.

9/4/2010 1:13:05 AM

No, I understand of course that it's religious. But why they decided to make masturbation the topic on which they would not yield is beyond me. If I were hardcore about this sort of thing I'd rather them teach kids how to beat off than how to fuck each other.

9/4/2010 1:47:57 AM

Question. If you are married and jerking it thinking about the wife, then its not a sin, AMIRITE?? So see, jerking off can be without sin.

Also I take issue with the stance of some conservatives that say beating it is bad because Onan disobeyed God. He did that after having sex, which is also used as the interpretation that contraceptives are against God. My reading of it is that God told him to get his dead brothers wife pregnant, and he disobeyed by not completing and getting her pregnant. But he was given a direct command, so I'm not sure how this is a blanket statement that every time we have sex or masturbate we have to be trying to make a child, and to do anything otherwise is a sin. Last time I checked, that wasn't the damn 11th commandment, just like most Baptists think that "Thou shalt not drink alcohol" was on the golden tablets.

9/4/2010 12:04:17 PM

so wait, Nighthawk's argument is that they want to be the one's to tell them the truth when the time is right

everything in my own experience and from what i see on tv/the movies tells me that usually parents are going to be some of the last people to find out that the time has come to hear that talk. and probably too late to do anything about it. you know, after you waited over a decade to tell your kid.

9/4/2010 1:48:21 PM

Gee look, it's religion not affecting anyone.

9/4/2010 2:40:08 PM

Quote :

"And, unless I'm mistaken, the big three -- homosexuality, outright abortion, and masturbation -- are still off the table."

I went to high school in Buncombe County, and we got a pretty thorough sex ed class. Our poor gym teacher did his very best to get through it. I don't remember any talk of abortion, but he definitely mentioned homosexuality and jackin' it.

9/4/2010 2:55:39 PM

I guess it's better to cling to a ideal where humans voluntarily refrain from engaging in something we're programmed to do, while teens are getting diseases or having children that they can't adequately care for.

9/4/2010 3:02:42 PM

as long as a parent could opt their kid out I see no problem with it at all.

9/4/2010 3:04:38 PM

Quote :

"(I admit I've never understood the masturbation one being off-limits, given its relative safety and the fact that everyone figures that out on their own anyway.)"

Relative safety? Masturbation is as safe as sex acts get. It's backwards and harmful that folks oppose teaching about it. Joycelyn Elders had the right idea.

9/4/2010 3:19:37 PM

I found this today on CNN:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/03/how-christians-spoil-sex/?hpt=C2

Relevant quote:

Quote :

"Acuff, who is married, says Christians shouldn’t just teach abstinence. They should also teach that while sex before marriage is bad, “sex when you’re married is awesome.” He says Christians damage sex in four ways: They teach guilt, not abstinence. They have very few ways to discuss it. They write 10 books about lust for every one book about the gift of sex. They've "made the crayon box pretty small" (they're afraid of being creative during sex)."

9/4/2010 4:09:35 PM

Quote :

"They should also teach that while sex before marriage is bad, “sex when you’re married is awesome."

^Kind of presents a catch 22 situation in a situation like this:



http://fycs.ifas.ufl.edu/newsletters/rnycu06/2006/04/communicating-with-teens-about-sex.html

Quote :

"In actuality, half (50%) of American teens have conversations with their parents about contraception, sexual behavior, and negative effects of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases/infections (Jaccard, Dodge, & Dittus, 2002). The other half gives us cause for concern. If they are not talking with their parents, then where do these teens get their information about sex? Sex education should not be a burden placed solely on schools"

Quote :

"In addition, parent-school partnerships in sexual health education (for example assigning ‘homework’ activities for youth to discuss sexuality issues with parents) are an effective means of preventing sexual risk behaviors and opening the lines of communication (Blake, Simkin, Ledsky, Perkins & Calabrese, 2001). School-based sex education involving communication exercises with parents contributed to the following: * Reducing early teens’ intentions to have sex before completing high school. * Increasing teens’ self-efficacy in refusing high-risk sexual behaviors. * Decreasing discomfort in parent-child communication about sex. "

Wonder if the NC changes include anything like that?

9/5/2010 7:41:02 PM

WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE PENIS! WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THE VAGINA!

DO YOU FIND IT AMUSING THAT WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THE TESTICLES?

...AND WE WILL DEFINITELY BE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT MASTURBATION!

9/7/2010 12:44:25 AM

A+++ POST WILL DO BUSINESS AGAIN. FAST SHIPPING. A+++++ SATISFACTION

9/7/2010 12:55:01 AM

^^AHA

^AHAHAHAHAHA



Seriously though, we gotta get the kids the information. I, for one, plan to have lots and lots of sex with college-aged men when I get older, and I would like them to understand the basics of sex and sexual health. It'll just make things a whole lot easier on me.

9/7/2010 1:16:03 AM

Quote :

"Gee look, it's religion not affecting anyone."

Once again you act as though religion were the prime mover behind stupidity.

Quote :

"Our poor gym teacher did his very best to get through it. I don't remember any talk of abortion, but he definitely mentioned homosexuality and jackin' it."

This may well be the case in some counties. At least in Guilford County, they referred to the three unmentionables as HAM -- homosexuality, abortion, and masturbation. Up until recently I admit I was unaware of substantial differences in sex ed policy throughout North Carolina. It may well be the case that, while GC had relatively liberal policies, they were not the most liberal.

Quote :

"Masturbation is as safe as sex acts get."

Oh, for Christ's sake. I obviously agree with you, but you want to make a big goddamn ordeal out of the thing.

Let me be clear: I am an unashamed masturbator, and treat any male who claims not to be so as a fucking liar. It can lead to unhealthy activity, but so can pretty much any other activity a human being participates in short of breathing.

I suppose I should be reassured that you didn't in some way link the activity to "patriarchy."

---

Supplanter, goddammit, I'm already angry enough that Portia de Rossi finds my gender repellent -- thanks for reiterating it!

9/7/2010 2:53:54 AM

^well the anti-sex-ed movement is at its core an attempt by the repressive patriarchy to subdue the natural sexual urges of children until they can be expressed in a manner approved by the Wholly Babble

Quote :

"Once again you act as though religion were the prime mover behind stupidity."

well it is

9/7/2010 5:17:04 AM

Religion isn't the cause of stupidity. It just focuses everyone's stupidity in one direction.

9/7/2010 8:50:23 AM

Quote :

"Once again you act as though religion were the prime mover behind stupidity."

LOL@ you trying to undermine mysticism's involvement in this AND my credibility in the argument in one statement. Is there where I should be putting words in your mouth in return?

It is unambiguously a religious movement. It's not like the secular alternative doesn't exist. It does exist. We know what sex education would be like when motivated by scientific data and medicine because it's already there. It's what the religious nuts are trying to block.

But then if I were an apologist, I'd probably try to shift the blame away from religion and place it on people too. Even in cases where it's absolutely certain that taking religion out of the equation would significantly improve the situation.

[Edited on September 7, 2010 at 9:22 AM. Reason : lol]

9/7/2010 9:21:58 AM

I do not see what all the whining and bitching about is by the religious right. One has two options if they don't want their innocent slut of a daughter hearing about sex in school.

1.) Don't sign the waiver for their kids to take sex ed (not sure if you parents can still pull you out of sex ed).

2.) Send them to private christian school

9/7/2010 11:16:38 AM

My sex ed class was absolutely wretched and did more to spread misinformation than to prevent it. It was taught by my 6th grade teachers and I highly suspect one of them was only able to have children using the "I'll lay here and be still until you're done; now turn off the lights so you can't see me cringe" method of procreation.

I can only hope that more information also comes with more training for the teachers.

9/7/2010 4:38:01 PM

Quote :

"Even in cases where it's absolutely certain that taking religion out of the equation would significantly improve the situation."

I don't know that it is. Even without religion people are still going to have social mores that -- surprise! -- may not line up with yours, based in purest reason though they doubtless are. People are still going to worry about what their neighbors think. People are still going to want to be the main authority in their kids lives. And some people are still going to be stupid enough to think that teaching sex ed will make their kids have sex, and there are a plethora of reasons to want to forestall that event that have nothing whatever to do with religion.

It isn't as though you take away religion and *poof* conservative social values and stupidity disappear or even necessarily diminish.

9/7/2010 4:48:45 PM

It's not ambiguous that Christian fundamentalism is behind every abstinence-only organization and initiative in America.

The fact that "some people are stupid" or "some people wouldn't change" is no where near enough of a good reason to follow faith-based mystical bullshit that is absolutely counter to science that is beneficial to our society.

9/8/2010 11:09:15 AM

Quote :

"The fact that "some people are stupid" or "some people wouldn't change" is no where near enough of a good reason to follow faith-based mystical bullshit that is absolutely counter to science that is beneficial to our society."

I don't recall trying to justify religion in this thread. All I did was point out that it's silly to think the issue would go away absent religion. I'm not even convinced it would be diminished by much.

If it's not evangelical organizations it'll be a coalition of frumpy housewives who probably just need a deep dicking but express that frustration with sexual conservatism.

9/8/2010 2:04:27 PM

You can't possibly be serious. All secular medical organizations support comprehensive sex education. If there were no religious nutbags pushing "no sex before marriage" you don't think abstinence-only education would be "diminished by much?" You've got to be fucking with me here.

9/8/2010 2:49:26 PM

All secular medical organizations vehemently point out that smoking cigarettes will fucking kill you, and that doesn't stop millions of people from taking it up every year. Last I checked there wasn't a religion that demanded nicotine consumption. Again, you seem to think that in the absence of religion we will all promptly come under the sway of logic, reason, and purest science. Again, I think that's preposterous.

9/8/2010 7:28:51 PM

Nicotine is addictive.

Not doing the nasty isn't.

9/8/2010 8:41:26 PM

actually, some people do have a sex addiction...

9/8/2010 8:47:12 PM

Not doing the nasty isn't.

9/8/2010 8:53:04 PM

lol, sorry

9/8/2010 9:05:07 PM

Quote :

"Nicotine is addictive. "

Indeed it is. You'll notice that I was careful in my word choice -- medical expertise "doesn't stop millions of people from taking it (smoking) up."

You don't start a thing out of addiction, you keep doing it out of addiction. And even though secular medical organizations tell people that it will kill them and that it's addictive, they keep starting.

Good job as usual, Bridget.

9/9/2010 2:54:59 AM

So....because people smoke cigarettes....we shouldn't teach teens how to use condoms? You lost me.

Or is this another one of your "some subset of humanity will continue to be stupid without religion so religion is OK" bullshit arguments?

This line of reasoning is not only tired, it's absolutely flawed. There are significantly more than 0 people on this planet that would switch from abstinence-only advocacy to comprehensive sex education if they didn't have a religious reason to push abstinence-only. Abstinence-only is objectively worse than comprehensive sex education.

Also, I'll go so far as to submit that if faith wasn't so ubiquitous in our society, people would trust scientists and doctors more and even fewer people would smoke. Granted, some people would still smoke, but the value of scientists' findings would increase somewhat and more people would take them more seriously.

Not only that, but if more credence were put into scientific advancement (which if religion wasn't around it assuredly would be) we could advance medical technology and mitigate the effects of cigarette smoking. As it stands right now, we have fundamentalists bickering with scientists and undermining their position as an authoritative source of information. This would go away too, except of course for the retards you like to summon that would still counter science based on some warped conservative values that would persist without religion.


[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

9/9/2010 8:56:39 AM

Quote :

"So....because people smoke cigarettes....we shouldn't teach teens how to use condoms?"

You said that if we got rid of religion we'd all listen to our doctors, who tell us that comprehensive sex ed is good. I pointed out that even in matters that have nothing to do with religion, people ignore doctors in droves.

Quote :

"Also, I'll go so far as to submit that if faith wasn't so ubiquitous in our society, people would trust scientists and doctors more and even fewer people would smoke."

That's it, I quit. I'm done. Take it! You win the thread. I'm not going to argue with someone who says that not only is religion wrong, but it actually causes cancer.

9/9/2010 1:16:29 PM

9/9/2010 1:24:26 PM

Religion aside, since we don't get a vote on people's religion, I think the focus should be on whether we want to keep this policy (with an option of moving even closer to comp sex ed) or risk its repeal (since no GOP voted for it & many heavily advocated against it).

Yes votes on this move towards comp sex ed:

Democrats

Quote :

"Representative(s): Adams; Alexander, K.; Alexander, M.; Allen; Bell; Bordsen; Bryant; Carney; Coates; Cotham; Crawford; Dickson; Earle; England; Faison; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Floyd,E.; Gibson; Gill; Glazier; Goforth; Goodwin; Haire; Harrell; Harrison; Hill; Holliman; Hughes; Insko; Jackson; Jeffus; Jones; Love; Lucas; Luebke; Mackey; Martin; McLawhorn; Michaux; Owens; Parmon; Pierce; Rapp; Ross; Stewart; Sutton; Tarleton; Tolson; Tucker; Underhill; Warren, E.; Warren, R.; Weiss; Whilden; Wilkins; Williams; Womble; Wray; Yongue"

Republicans

Quote :

"Representative(s): None"

No votes:

Democrats:

Quote :

"Representative(s): Braxton; Brisson; Cole; Spear"

Republicans:

Quote :

"Representative(s): Avila; Barnhart; Blackwell; Blackwood; Blust; Boles; Brown; Brubaker; Burr; Burris-Floyd; Cleveland; Current; Daughtry; Dockham; Dollar; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Grady; Guice; Gulley; Hilton; Holloway; Howard; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Justice; Justus; Killian; Langdon; Lewis; McComas; McCormick; McElraft; McGee; Mills; Moore; Neumann; Randleman; Rhyne; Sager; Samuelson; Stam; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Tillis; West; Wiley"

Keep that in mind when considering voting for any of the bolded names.

[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

9/9/2010 2:41:10 PM

Didn't think it was worth starting a new thread over this one link, but since this thread is where I've discussed general assembly elections the most, I figured I'd add it here:

http://www.conservationcouncilnc.org/our-work/scorecards/scorecard_2010.pdf

It rates the General Assembly members on environmental efforts. You can see how they responded to specific efforts, or just look at their summary ratings on the right.

10/12/2010 3:03:03 PM

^I'll get on reading that later, but for now...

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Indeed it is. You'll notice that I was careful in my word choice -- medical expertise "doesn't stop millions of people from taking it (smoking) up." You don't start a thing out of addiction, you keep doing it out of addiction. And even though secular medical organizations tell people that it will kill them and that it's addictive, they keep starting. Good job as usual, Bridget."

Are you seriously patronizing me because I didn't pick up on your careful word choice?

Your argument was ridiculous in the first place. The fact that people still smoke cigarettes has nothing to do with the role that religious loons play in determining policy about sex education.

Fuck you as usual, GrumpyGOP.

10/12/2010 4:34:57 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/8609861/

Quote :

"But Rep. Justin Burr, R-Stanly... said many Republican voters want action on social issues after seeing Democrats push through laws last year such as ... a school sex education law that teaches more about contraception. "If you look at the last two years when the Democrats and the liberals here have pushed their ultraliberal social agenda in Raleigh, that's what really pushed the grass roots to fight back here and helped us win a majority," Burr said."

The move towards comprehensive sex ed law passed last year may be heading for repeal now that the GOP are running things. Something to keep an eye on. And let your representative know where you stand if you care to do so.

11/11/2010 4:52:26 PM

^^I wasn't being patronizing, I was explaining what I said -- in large part because there was some subtlety involved.

Quote :

"The fact that people still smoke cigarettes has nothing to do with the role that religious loons play in determining policy about sex education. "

As far as that goes, you're right. But that wasn't really what I was arguing about at that point. You brought up addictiveness, which has zero role in people starting something.

As to your broader statement, yes, religious loons play a role in determining policy about sex education. My point is that it does not follow that eliminating religion will eliminate looniness. If you get rid of religion, stupid people will still, by and large, be stupid. If totally secular people will reject an indisputable collection of scientific knowledge regarding the addictiveness and negative health effects of tobacco, what makes you think that totally secular people are, by virtue of that characteristic, suddenly totally convinced by scientific study in other fields (including sex education)?

11/12/2010 1:07:01 AM

the "ultraliberal social agenda" thing is a major laff

what qualifies as "ultraliberal" IMO is discussion of LGBTQ starting in elementary school and BDSM in high school (in addition to the typical course of comprehensive sex education), stressing the acceptability and normalcy of both queer and kink

not a bad idea IMO

11/12/2010 1:21:15 AM

In accordance with their parents wishes, Rod and Todd will now step outside in the hallway and pray for our souls.

"Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from other such sexual education films as Debbie Does Abstinence and What's the Fuss About Syphilis?
...
"So that's sex. And now that you know how, kids, don't do it!"

11/12/2010 1:41:36 AM