Let's talk about sex, baby.

I am wondering if this is the direct result of the ' abstinance' teaching that so many people have been exposed to here in america?
More often then not, you hear DONT DO IT before you hear about safety, birth control , and TALKING about it.
hmm
interesting.

cant access the NYT article with out a password?
can you post the article here?

Yes, that was a stunner of a column.

We haven't gotten too far yet. She knows that people who love each other get married and sometimes have babies. She knows (in a very rudimentary way) that babies are made by mixing up two people -- I don't remember how I've phrased it exactly, but we've gone over that she got her blue eyes from her papa and her long fingers from me, etc. And she's gleaned enough that she suggested that her orange (stuffed) kitten had a red mama and a yellow papa.

She knows the proper names for various body parts.

Right now I just plan to answer questions as she has them. I don't think I'll hold anything in particular back, though.

When she's older and it's more of an issue I'll probably go "abstinence plus" -- not suggesting that she wait until marriage, but suggesting she wait well past when she'll probably start feeling pressure. But will provide info on birth control etc. as well.

You were right on target, shewolf.

Here's the full article:

Bush's Sex Scandal
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: February 16, 2005


'm sorry to report a sex scandal in the heart of the Bush administration. Worse, it doesn't involve private behavior, but public conduct.

You see, for all the carnage in President Bush's budget, one program is being showered with additional cash - almost three times as much as it got in 2001. It's "abstinence only" sex education, and the best research suggests that it will cost far more lives than the Clinton administration's much more notorious sex scandal.

Mr. Bush means well. But "abstinence only" is a misnomer that in practice is an assault on sex education itself. There's a good deal of evidence that the result will not be more young rosy-cheeked virgins - it will be more pregnancies, abortions, gonorrhea and deaths from AIDS.

Look, I'm all for abstinence education. I support the booming abstinence industry as it peddles panties and boxers decorated with stop signs (at www.abstinence.net), and "Pet Your Dog, Not Your Date" T-shirts.

Abstinence education is great because it helps counteract the peer pressure that often leaves teenagers with broken hearts - and broken health.

For that reason, almost all sex-ed classes in America already encourage abstinence. But abstinence-only education isn't primarily about promoting abstinence - it's about blindly refusing to teach contraception.

To get federal funds, for example, abstinence-only programs are typically barred by law from discussing condoms or other forms of contraception - except to describe how they can fail. So kids in these programs go all through high school without learning anything but abstinence, even though more than 60 percent of American teenagers have sex before age 18.

In the old days, social conservatives simply fought any mention of sex. In 1906, The Ladies' Home Journal published articles about venereal disease - and 75,000 readers canceled their subscriptions. Congress banned the mailing of family planning information, and Margaret Sanger was jailed in 1916 for selling a birth control pamphlet to an undercover policewoman.

But silence about sex only nurtured venereal diseases (one New York doctor, probably exaggerating, claimed in 1904 that 60 percent of American men had syphilis or gonorrhea), so sex education gradually gained ground. Then social conservatives had a brilliant idea: instead of fighting sex ed directly, they campaigned for abstinence-only programs that eviscerated any discussion of contraception.

That shrewd approach succeeded. In 1988, a survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that only 2 percent of sex-ed teachers used an abstinence-only approach. Now, the institute says, a quarter of them do.

Other developed countries focus much more on contraception. The upshot is that while teenagers in the U.S. have about as much sexual activity as teenagers in Canada or Europe, Americans girls are four times as likely as German girls to become pregnant, almost five times as likely as French girls to have a baby, and more than seven times as likely as Dutch girls to have an abortion. Young Americans are five times as likely to have H.I.V. as young Germans, and teenagers' gonorrhea rate is 70 times higher in the U.S. than in the Netherlands or France.

Some studies have claimed that abstinence-only programs work, but researchers criticize the studies for being riddled with flaws. A National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy task force examined the issue and concluded: "There do not currently exist any abstinence-only programs with strong evidence that they either delay sex or reduce teen pregnancy."

Worse, there's some evidence that abstinence-only programs lead to increases in unprotected sex.

Perhaps the most careful study of the issue involved 12,000 young people. It found that those taking virginity pledges had sex 18 months later, on average, than those who had not taken the pledge. But even 88 percent of the pledgers had sex before marriage.

More troubling, the pledgers were much less likely to use contraception when they did have sex - only 40 percent of the males used condoms, compared with 59 percent of those who did not take the pledge.

In contrast, there's plenty of evidence that abstinence-plus programs - which encourage abstinence but also teach contraception - delay sex and increase the use of contraception. So, at a time when we're cutting school and health programs, why should we pour additional tax money into abstinence-only initiatives, which are likely to lead to more pregnancies, more abortions and more kids with AIDS? Now, that's a scandal.

A stunner is right!

Sex and babies aren't even on Mo's radar. Even when his mom was pregnant (she got pregnant right about the time he moved in with us) and even when we went to the hospital to meet his sisters he didn't really registar anything about it.

I understand that they reccommend that the same sex parent give the sex talks, which lets me off the biggest hook, perhaps. When he starts asking or showing an interest, I'll start answering.

We discussed it a bit in first grade (not in school, here) and then our school taught it in fifth grade and then our church group has a full sex ed program in eighth grade. The early discussion was a result of a how does a baby grow in your 'tummy' question, so I pulled out my pregnancy books and showed them some pictures of the developing fetus in utero. It was very cursory discussion. The school program, from what I gathered, was mostly giggles from both the boys and the girls. Our church program covers it all, including slides.

Thank you for posting that Boom.
As a nurse it makes me angry to see people teaching our kids that no sex is good and reinforcing the thought of sexual desires being wrong and something you should avoid if you want to be a ' good person'
( no , the article didnt state that.. but it is in literature from these so called abstinence classes... grrr )

The minute you make something sound forbidden to a teenager, the minute they want to do it.
They are going through many physical changes in thier little bodies and thier hormones are RAGING. Sex is NATURAL , not wrong. And that is the approach IMO that needs to be taken. Dont focus on the fact that little Mary is HAVING sex, focus on the fact that little Mary is using BIRTH CONTROL because it keeps her safe and she knows that.
And to think that the current administration is allocating MORE funds to teach NO SEX.. ooooo
that burns my fur.

That cool that your church offers such a program, J_B. Eighth grade sounds like a great time delve into the topic.

If you don't mind saying, what church do you go to?

As a health care worker I'm sure this stuff does burn you up, shewolf. The thing that drives me nuts is that if they are teaching that condoms have a high failure rate then why would anyone bother to use them - hence, HIV, VD, babies, abortions, etc. It seems it would be better to not mention condoms at all than to teach that they don't work!

I think it starts with honest, but age appropriate answers to questions. The baby comes from their mommy's uterus--not the stork or the cabbage patch.

At about seven, I did sit down for informative, age appropriate discussions about sex--they also included my moral stance. Ie--at eleven, or so, my son heard about his responsibility to any girl he 'impregnated'--how I thought a young man should treat a girl... Also mythbusted.

Give them what they can handle--but for God's sake--don't avoid it. And, if they don't want to hear it....give them a while to get used to the fact that they have to hear it.

I've been very pleased--but as my daughter became older--and her issues..."matured", I really had to stretch as a parent. <smiles>

No sex IS good, shewolf. Abstinence between committed relationships is preferable to casual sex with anything that walks past-- to some people.

It is a free country--but what is wrong with being choosy?

We go to the UU Church. Here's a link to the program they use.

http://www.uua.org/owl/

I disagree about waiting until eighth grade. My son is in fifth grade, and half the girls in his class are wearing bras and starting their periods. Kids are physically maturing earlier now than when we grew up.

They recently showed the kids the "Growth & Development" films at school, but apparently they left a lot out. My son said they spent a lot of time with the boys talking about deodorant!!! Sheesh. His father has attempted to talk to him about sex several times, but always backs off because it's an uncomfortable subject for both of them.

It looks like it's going to be up to me. <sigh>

Eva, I agree that 8th grade is too late to start the discussion. My kids were always better informed than many of their peers because we tend to be open about a lot of subjects and I answered any questions they had, often times leading into deeper discussions. Then I had the dilema of having them spread their info around the playground. I always told them that there are parents who don't want their children getting this information and just because they knew something didn't mean they had to be the expert on the playground. They probably just nodded and then yabbered to everyone they met, but I was a little uncomfortable with my kids being the 'sex ed' experts.

"Give them what they can handle--but for God's sake--don't avoid it. And, if they don't want to hear it....give them a while to get used to the fact that they have to hear it. "

That's damn good advice, Lash!

And that program looks really good, J_B. I like the parent directed homework aspect of it a lot.

You make an excellent point, Eva. There was an article in my paper the other day about a girl who was raped and gave birth - she was 11.

Despite all of the other horrid details in this story I found myself thinking "11!? She was fertile at 11!?"

When I was in school it was all scare tactics but they worked. I remember a sex-ed film that had graphic photos of VD and a driver's ed film that showed people smeared all over the highway.

Thank you, boomerang!

We have always been very open with the kids about female / male physical differences, sex and sexuality. Always used anatomical names for body parts. For a long time boy cub called them "tentacles" which got some interesting looks when overheard.

I think if you make it a natural part of life, emphasize that it's a way for two people who love each other very much to share their love with one another, and avoid appearing embarrassed about it, the kids have a better chance of growing into young adults with healthy body images and understanding that it is "special."

Daughter came home a couple of years ago saying they were going to have sex ed the next couple of days. Days? Well, all we can talk about is abstinance, she said. Oh, okay, I said... And I went into the " Don't do it until you find someone very special that deserves to own that special moment in your life. You can only have the first time once. And whoever you choose owns that moment with you." I know that Mom. (rolls eyes) Okay, I think to myself, new approach.

Well are ya'll gonna talk about blow jobs? I mean, when the school talks about abstinance does it include talking to you about not giving blow jobs?

(HORROR! OMG!!! MY MOM JUST SAID BLOW JOB!!)

That's not sex, she says as she looks at me as if she can't believe how old and unhip I am.

Really? Honey, then why do you think they call it oral sex?

Uh, I hadn't thought about that.. Oh, my gosh! You're right. I never thought of it that way.

Come to find out most of the kids are resorting to oral sex, thinking they can't get pregnant, catch VD's or lose their virginity.

To me the problem with abstinance only is that not all parents will talk to their kids, or have accurate information to pass onto them. And, perhaps most importantly of all, it isn't about telling them what to do or teaching them about the mechanics and consequences. It's completely about how we as parents live and what we expose them to. Kids pick up on attitudes, embarrassment, who's "loose" at family reunions and who shows genuine love and affection for their mate. They see how people dress, either hiding or flaunting their sexuality, and on and on. They end up in their teen years with a set of values based on a lifetime of experiences and impressions that tell them whether or not sex is good or bad, lovely or shameful, free or has a price attached, and very importantly, whether or not it means momentary physical feel good or committed love for another human being.

They can't really teach all that in school. But, I'd like them to cover the basics... Like blow jobs mean sex, too.

My son's 11th birthday is in less than a month, and he just got his first serious valentine from a girl in his class who has a crush on him. (He tells me, "She's nice, but I don't like her 'that' way.") His friends know this girl likes him and are starting to make remarks about her to him. So I think we need to start talking about boy-girl relationships and peer pressure.

I'm also not sure how much he knows about physiology & puberty, despite the fact that he rolls his eyes, says he knows what it's all about and then blushes and leaves the room. I don't want to force a conversation that makes him terribly uncomfortable, but I do think we need to talk. Any suggestions, anyone?

Well said squinney!
And i cant agree more with the Oral sex IS SEX statement.
I remember in school it was ' no big deal' because it was deemed as ' not sex, just making out' <-- is my reaction NOW!
then i was ok with the idea and thought nothing of it.
There was also the idea that if a girl didnt let the guy ' all the way in' she couldnt get pregnant , it WASNT sex, and it was harmless...
HA! not letting the boy all the way in? Pffff yea , right, like that will happen.

I know that NO sex is good too . My previous point was simply about the child who IS currently sexually active, and more of a support for the educated decision to use a condom . In the few times I have talked to kids about sex , I admit , I was stressing the no sex stand point. But, following that idea with birthcontrol for those ' who choose to have sex, I think is the best lesson.

I am not sure about an appropriate age for ' sex talk'. I think that sex talk should be welcome at any age. Of course, the sex talk needs to be age appropriate. I cant imagine telling a 3yr old about the dynamics of sperm , and how they penetrate the egg in the fallopian tube after insemination.. Poor child would stare at me like Whauh? HAHA! But finding a way to seak to a child early on in life helps them to remember that they can approach you with anything.

My mother took the hands off, dont talk , dont tell, dont teach approach. I lost my virginity when i was 11 . Not blaming her.. blaming her style. Even now, as a mother, she refuses to broach the subject in a light hearted manner. Our sex talk was a one day , " Here , look at this book and come to me with your questions" discussion.
This book was like the ones you find in the library. Black and white pencil drawings , non graphic, ( wich i think is what kept me from ASKING questions because there was nothing there that spured my curiousity) boring explainations- THIS IS HOW YOU GROW- book. I read it as quickly as i could because mom said so , and went on with my life. NEVER was I approached about sex again . Anytime my mother and I were at a movie , and someone was nude, or partially nude, my eyes were covered, if in a theather i was made to bend over, and was promptly told it was wrong to look. It is bad.
Strange, now that I re read and revisit my sex lessons, but unfortunatly, that still seems to be a practice. Sex = bad. nudity = bad. WANTING sex = horrid.

Yes, squinney! Well said. I think the fact that your daughter informed you that it was sex-ed day and that you asked a blunt question really opened the door to a frank discussion.

The fact that a lot of parents won't talk about it (as shewolf so poignantly demonstrates with the example of her mother) - or that they dodge talking about it really points out that information needs to come from OUTSIDE the home as well as inside the home.

And by "outside" I don't mean from their friends!

That's one of the reasons that J_B's church example was so cool. That seems like a place where parents and kids could feel comfortable discussing something that might otherwise make them squirmey.

I have some in-laws that are Christan fundamentalists (and no, I'm not bashing Christian fundamentalists in general) but they allow their kids to watch all kinds of violence but shut the TV/movie/whatever down the minute anything having to do with sex is mentioned.

That is a really weird message to send a kid, I think.