Just Say No: It didn't work for drugs either!

Published on May 28, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

I've actually been sitting on this article awhile, I was just reminded of it recently.

Here in Texas, the school sex ed programs teach "abstinence only". Many other states have switched to this sort of sex ed as well. While I am a Christian and would love to see my children respect themselves and their future spouses enough to abstain until marriage, I have a problem with this being the standard for public schools.

Why is this? Well, it's simple, really. In a perfect world, sex ed shouldn't need to be taught in the schools. It would be taught at home, with caring parents the child knew they could turn to when the difficult questions arose. The problem is, this ideal world doesn't exist. Either the parents aren't there, or they're all caught up in societal or religious taboos to answer their children's questions in the honest, thorough, and unjudgemental manner in which they should be answered.

The school, then, is left to fill in the gaps. And these schools must serve everyone from the innercity child who will most likely turn to a boyfriend or girlfriend for the attention they cannot get at home, where the realities of choice and/or chance prevent them from having the kind of stable lifestyle everybody deserves. And these children deserve a future better than the stereotypical "pregnant at 14, on welfare for life" lifestyle that awaits far too many of them. They DESERVE education about how to protect their bodies against the myriad of diseases that they are likely to contract through promiscuous sex with equally promiscuous partners, they DESERVE an opportunity to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies, thus reducing the chance that they will later have to choose to ABORT those same unwanted pregnancies. In short, they should not be condemned to a life without hope due to mistakes that may have been made by their parents.

In the 1980's, Nancy Reagan began the "just say no" campaign with drugs. All of us who are old enough remember it, they brought out high profile celebrities and spent a boatload of money for a program that was a complete wash. It didn't diminish the use of drugs among teens one bit. The abstinence only programs are equally ineffective.

I'd love to live in the kind of ideal world where "abstinence only" programs were the solution, truly I would. But the sad truth is, we don't, and we won't, because such a world is pure fiction as long as we are given the freedom that is our birthright. The same freedom that allows some of us to make responsible choices allows us to make irresponsible ones as well, and while we SHOULD teach our children to make responsible choices, we must also provide them with the education to deal with the consequences if they do not.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on May 28, 2005

Well, it's simple, really. In a perfect world, sex ed shouldn't need to be taught in the schools. It would be taught at home, with caring parents the child knew they could turn to when the difficult questions arose. The problem is, this ideal world doesn't exist. Either the parents aren't there, or they're all caught up in societal or religious taboos to answer their children's questions in the honest, thorough, and unjudgemental manner in which they should be answered.

The school, then, is left to fill in the gaps.

Abstinance does work, but is not followed. In that light, the above is very insightful! And unfortunately all too true.

Abstinance only will not work. but any program that does not include it is false.

In the end, if parents dont care, neither will the pregnant teens.

bakerstreet

on May 28, 2005

I wish I could agree with you Gid, but if there is a child that hit 10 or 11 in the US that doesn't know what a rubber is I would be shocked. You can't for a moment pretend that ANYWHERE is abstinance only, or that the school plays even a minor role in the real 'sex education' of anyone whether their parents take part or not.

The problem is 'abstinance' education is accused of being 'morality based', and when that idea is accepted then people overlook that the Liberal version is just as morality based. Have you ever seen a good balace? Ever?

I lived in a 'progressive' area in late elemetary and junior high school. I had my first sex ed class in 6th grade. Were we taught abstinance? Hell no. What I got then was a textbook description of the act. Later, I got the same with the word "birth control" mixed in here and there.

At that time they were basically forbidden to use the word abstinance because of church/state. We had angry parents at school board meetings who didn't WANT their kids told they shouldn't have sex, if you can believe that. That was the dumbass 70's for ya...

I don't think schools should teach 'sex ed' at all in a social sense. We have biology class that teaches human reproduction and anatomy. I don't see why my tax dollars should pay for ANYONE's propaganda to be funneled into my kid's head.

Christians want to teach abstinance only, their opposition make a big show and then behave as though sex is a 'mishap', and any responsibility you might have is just damage control. I don't think either party needs to be in schools.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 28, 2005

Baker,

The way I see it, most families are in the public schools by CHOICE. Homeschooling is legal in all 50 states (though incredibly difficult in some states, it is still legal), and families, in my opinion need to send the message to the public schools that because they are serving an agenda that is antithetical to our own, we won't participate!

I agree that I'd rather not have either group represented in the schools, but at the same time, I'd rather not have scientists who use their podium to mock creationism either; unfortunately, current law doesn't give me a choice. And I'd rather not have history teachers that use their platform to teach our children to hate America because of our "crimes against humanity", again, I have to deal with the fact that I can't get a majority to stand up against these imbeciles!

Sadly, the public schools are a flawed place for learning and will be until the majority of Americans stop simply using them as babysitters and start examining the drivel that is being pounded into our children's minds. Things have changed a LOT since I left high school in '88.

bakerstreet

on May 28, 2005

"The way I see it, most families are in the public schools by CHOICE. "

I would think you if anyone would understand that it is almost impossible for someone to live in the US on a single income. We struggle through, as do you, but I don't see how my neighbors paying 600-800 a month rent, 300-500 health insurance, etc., etc., could afford to have one parent at home all the time.

Public schools are now socialist day care. We are worker bees who have to have somewhere to send our kids while we are serving the greater good. I think that is why people are pushing for longer days and year-round school. Heck, we are already paying for daycare, why pay not just stretch school out to cover it all.

The real danger in that is what I mentioned above and that you acknowledge. The kids aren't just learning, they are being indoctrinated one way or another. I think we both agree about this for the most part.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 28, 2005

Baker,

That's why I used the word "most". For some families it can't be done, for some (such as ours), incredible sacrifices have to be made (such as trying to keep one of our two 16 & 19 year old cars running so I can do my job with very little extra income to do it), and when those sacrifices must be made, the family needs to decide whether it's worth it (for us it is, most definitely; I can't answer that question for others).

But I believe it will take a massive "school boycott" (perhaps organized "sickouts" by activist parents who want to reform public schools) before the state legislators will get the message and fix them.

bakerstreet

on May 28, 2005

You and I will make the sacrifices necessary. Others won't. I have friends that claim they want to do what you are suggesting and say they can't afford it, but then they trade their car in on a new one every time they send in the last payment. God forbid their wives miss out spending $1k on lawn care and home improvements every year...

People just don't think like this any more, and there aren't enough of us who do to make a difference. We are the annoyances in our neighborhoods, not the trend setters. The rest value golf-groomed lawns and OnStar above the ruin of their society.

Sorry to shove this offtopic, but to me it is about the state educating our kids about things they have no business teaching. As I have said on other blogs, if they have no responsibility when their indoctrination goes sour, they shouldn't have the priviledge of indoctination.

Dr Guy

on May 28, 2005

The simple fact for both of you, is that we already PAY for public schooling, and with little or no input. many, like baker says, cannot afford double bills.

I have home schooled. And Public. I paid double. At least here we did have a choice and took it.

That does not make Gid's premise invalid. Nor does it validate it. it is reality.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 28, 2005

Dr. Guy,

Yes, we pay for public schooling. But the fact is, the federal government has used funding as a whip to mandate its own agenda. The public schools can't afford to take a stance against the government by refusing funding, but taxpaying citizens COULD afford to take action to stop this unnecessary meddling. And they wouldn't even have to do it by homeschooling.

Here in Texas, for instance, a student's daily absence, if unexcused, costs the school $25 a day. If 100 children's parents within a school district agreed to four "sickout" days a year, they could hit the school's pocketbooks to the tune of $10,000 a year. That would be significant for the school to take notice.

Activism is sadly missing in this day and age as we complacently accept the undermining of our values and morals by the teaching of a radical agenda. We CAN stop it, but like most activism, it will come at some personal cost.

bakerstreet

on May 28, 2005

You understand that 'sickout' time would be considered truency and basically threaten the parent with state intervention in the home, right? It isn't like homeschooling for those days, they would consider them unexcused absences.

I understand the spirit of civil disobedience here, but I think in terms of our kids it can be pretty dangerous. I don't know about where you live, but here the social services nazis treat truency like child abuse...

Dr Guy

on May 28, 2005

No, it is not missing. It is not coordinated. had I and others done that, sure. But I did it on my own (as did some friends). But we did not coordinate and did not make our presence felt (what is a dozen out of 20+k?).

You are right in that we do have to organize. Sadly I did not. And thus we paid double.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 28, 2005

Yes, baker, but every school has a certain number of days a child must be absent in a semester to be considered "truant". This is why I used the example of "four days"; most districts I know of require 5 unexcused absences for "truancy" charges; two per semester would put parents well under the cap. Plus, while prosecuting 1 parent's not difficult, prosecuting 100 is a potential PR nightmare once groups such as the Rutherford Institute got wind of it.

My answer may not be the right answer, baker, I'll readily concede to that. But the fact is, unless we want to see the continual deterioration of our public schools, we need parents of students within those schools to be willing to stand up and DEMAND that "enough is enough!"

Dr Guy

on May 28, 2005

I understand the spirit of civil disobedience here, but I think in terms of our kids it can be pretty dangerous. I don't know about where you live, but here the social services nazis treat truency like child abuse...

That is ironic in light of Gid's other articles. And unfortunately too true.

Dr Guy

on May 28, 2005

Demand? Demand? We are lucky if they even recognize what the hell is going on!

But your point is taken. Tho the parents will never take a stand. And those that do (as I said), are not organized.

But keep the flame lit! maybe for my children's children we can make a difference.

bakerstreet

on May 28, 2005

It was explained to me that those 4 or so days are there to allow for oversite in terms of losing notes and forgetting doctor's excuses. It is my understanding that they can proceed against any parent if they know for sure they are purposely witholding their child from going to school for no "good" reason.

I think where you and I differ is on where the fight is. The war is lost in terms of parents and schools. They have the power and the system behind them to impose it. The only way we can make change is to go over their heads and legislate changes.

This is why I am more understanding of the NCLB act and such "imposition". I think imposition is necessary, since these bastards have so much power and so little oversite. I can't impose my will on them, but I can vote for people who will.

Flawed? Obfuscated? Sure, but I see little hope elsewhere.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 28, 2005

Baker,

I think that's where we differ on most topics, truthfully. And I don't see that as a wrong thing. You see, in terms of approach, you're more a "reformer", and I'm more "separatist". The thing is, we both have vital roles to fill in effecting change. The mainstream politician does NOT want the "separatist" to become mainstream; their livelihoods and that of their companions is at stake. And so they are much more likely to accept the more amicable terms of the "reformer".

An example of what I am talking about is Texas Congressman Ron Paul. A Republican, Paul decided some time ago that his fight should be WITHIN the Republican Party, despite the fact that he votes almost consistently with the Libertarian Party line and is a prominent Libertarian speaker. As such, he is a valuable asset that lends our party a legitimacy we wouldn't have with politicians such as him.

So, while we differ on approach, I don't see why either of us should ever see that as a BAD thing. What matters is that we have common goals.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!