Swedish sex education has time for games and mature debate

[TheIrishman]

Swedish sex education has time for games and mature debate

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/05/swedish-sex-education-games-mature-debate

<< Luxury of eight-week course in Gnesta means any question can be asked and answered and there's ample chance to revisit issues. >>

[Chef Ramsay]

I guess when a concept is fairly ubiquitous and not shrouded in mystery or curiosity then the abuse or misuse of it is pretty low. That said, the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) doesn't work in America because there really is no discussion just scare tactics by a police officer teaching the class.

[saddampbuh]

this trouble with this is it encourages underage kids to fornicate and says dont get pregnant or aids when they do it, this is not good enough

[Spendulus]

I guess when a concept is fairly ubiquitous and not shrouded in mystery or curiosity then the abuse or misuse of it is pretty low. That said, the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) doesn't work in America because there really is no discussion just scare tactics by a police officer teaching the class.

I've always been a bit skeptical of the idea of bringing the DEA agents into classrooms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6UvNgbqIA

[Brad Pitt]

this trouble with this is it encourages underage kids to fornicate and says dont get pregnant or aids when they do it, this is not good enough

It doesn't. And what's the alternative? Not tell them anything and let them just work it out for themselves? Ignorance will only lead to ignorance and unwanted pregnancies.

[saddampbuh]

It doesn't. And what's the alternative? Not tell them anything and let them just work it out for themselves? Ignorance will only lead to ignorance and unwanted pregnancies.

the alternative is not letting them go where they please and do as they please unsupervised, the way things used to be for the whole of human history until the 1960s. children should be seen and not heard.

[ThEmporium]

this trouble with this is it encourages underage kids to fornicate and says dont get pregnant or aids when they do it, this is not good enough

I do not see any benefit in sex education, it is just a hype to bring the men and women in naked, make this world in to naked place, have free sex with anyone irrespective of any relations, this is utter stupidity to bring such education in the name of sex, this leads and brings more humiliation to feminine gender. Men has more advantages in this type of free sex education rather than women.

[jaysabi]

this trouble with this is it encourages underage kids to fornicate and says dont get pregnant or aids when they do it, this is not good enough

It doesn't. And what's the alternative? Not tell them anything and let them just work it out for themselves? Ignorance will only lead to ignorance and unwanted pregnancies.

Plenty of evidence to back this up already. States with abstinence only programs, instead of comprehensive sex education, have the highest rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies in the country. Comprehensive sex education does a better job of achieving the goals of abstinence only programs than those programs do.

South Carolina ... is part of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) grouping of states consistently boasting the highest rates of STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. The states with the highest STD rates are also those with largely abstinence-only programs. This is not a coincidence: Young people who receive only abstinence-only education tend to engage in riskier sexual health behaviors once becoming sexually active. Southern states report the highest percentage of students having had sexual intercourse prior to age 13; the highest percentage of students who have had intercourse with four or more partners; and the highest incidence of sexual activity without barriers or contraception.

http://news.yahoo.com/abstinence-only-sex-ed-driving-std-rates-203137849.html

[Spendulus]

this trouble with this is it encourages underage kids to fornicate and says dont get pregnant or aids when they do it, this is not good enough

It doesn't. And what's the alternative? Not tell them anything and let them just work it out for themselves? Ignorance will only lead to ignorance and unwanted pregnancies.

Plenty of evidence to back this up already. States with abstinence only programs, instead of comprehensive sex education, have the highest rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies in the country. Comprehensive sex education does a better job of achieving the goals of abstinence only programs than those programs do.

South Carolina ... is part of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) grouping of states consistently boasting the highest rates of STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. The states with the highest STD rates are also those with largely abstinence-only programs. This is not a coincidence: Young people who receive only abstinence-only education tend to engage in riskier sexual health behaviors once becoming sexually active. Southern states report the highest percentage of students having had sexual intercourse prior to age 13; the highest percentage of students who have had intercourse with four or more partners; and the highest incidence of sexual activity without barriers or contraception.

http://news.yahoo.com/abstinence-only-sex-ed-driving-std-rates-203137849.html

You are reciting propaganda.  The very idea that in an Internet+20 years era, government programming in government schools would affect teenager behavior on sex is so absurd.  I mean, really. 

Schools are possibly capable of teaching math, physics, chemistry, English grammar, and the like.  To actually believe they can teach sex is just plain stupid.  The kids know this stuff.   What they don't know they can find out in about 2 minutes on their phones.

I mean, REALLY?  You are going to have to actually defend the premise that 10 year old kids don't know that if they have unprotected sex they could have babies or get diseases.  REALLY?  This is 2015, not 1935.

The part that's utter nonsense is the "government will help you with this" and the "government will help you with that."

[jaysabi]

this trouble with this is it encourages underage kids to fornicate and says dont get pregnant or aids when they do it, this is not good enough

It doesn't. And what's the alternative? Not tell them anything and let them just work it out for themselves? Ignorance will only lead to ignorance and unwanted pregnancies.

Plenty of evidence to back this up already. States with abstinence only programs, instead of comprehensive sex education, have the highest rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies in the country. Comprehensive sex education does a better job of achieving the goals of abstinence only programs than those programs do.

South Carolina ... is part of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) grouping of states consistently boasting the highest rates of STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. The states with the highest STD rates are also those with largely abstinence-only programs. This is not a coincidence: Young people who receive only abstinence-only education tend to engage in riskier sexual health behaviors once becoming sexually active. Southern states report the highest percentage of students having had sexual intercourse prior to age 13; the highest percentage of students who have had intercourse with four or more partners; and the highest incidence of sexual activity without barriers or contraception.

http://news.yahoo.com/abstinence-only-sex-ed-driving-std-rates-203137849.html

You are reciting propaganda.  The very idea that in an Internet+20 years era, government programming in government schools would affect teenager behavior on sex is so absurd.  I mean, really. 

Schools are possibly capable of teaching math, physics, chemistry, English grammar, and the like.  To actually believe they can teach sex is just plain stupid.  The kids know this stuff.   What they don't know they can find out in about 2 minutes on their phones.

I mean, REALLY?  You are going to have to actually defend the premise that 10 year old kids don't know that if they have unprotected sex they could have babies or get diseases.  REALLY?  This is 2015, not 1935.

The part that's utter nonsense is the "government will help you with this" and the "government will help you with that."

I couldn't help but notice the total lack of anything to substantiate your opinion in your response. That's because all the stats back me up; all the data supports the conclusion that schools that don't teach comprehensive sex education have higher incidences of STDs and unintentional pregnancies. Whine about it all you want, it's not helping anything. You didn't counter with anything other than a hypothesis that 'it's the internet age, man, information is out there and stuff.'

And yet, the reality remains the reality.

[Spendulus]

this trouble with this is it encourages underage kids to fornicate and says dont get pregnant or aids when they do it, this is not good enough

It doesn't. And what's the alternative? Not tell them anything and let them just work it out for themselves? Ignorance will only lead to ignorance and unwanted pregnancies.

Plenty of evidence to back this up already. States with abstinence only programs, instead of comprehensive sex education, have the highest rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies in the country. Comprehensive sex education does a better job of achieving the goals of abstinence only programs than those programs do.

South Carolina ... is part of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) grouping of states consistently boasting the highest rates of STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. The states with the highest STD rates are also those with largely abstinence-only programs. This is not a coincidence: Young people who receive only abstinence-only education tend to engage in riskier sexual health behaviors once becoming sexually active. Southern states report the highest percentage of students having had sexual intercourse prior to age 13; the highest percentage of students who have had intercourse with four or more partners; and the highest incidence of sexual activity without barriers or contraception.

http://news.yahoo.com/abstinence-only-sex-ed-driving-std-rates-203137849.html

You are reciting propaganda.  The very idea that in an Internet+20 years era, government programming in government schools would affect teenager behavior on sex is so absurd.  I mean, really. 

Schools are possibly capable of teaching math, physics, chemistry, English grammar, and the like.  To actually believe they can teach sex is just plain stupid.  The kids know this stuff.   What they don't know they can find out in about 2 minutes on their phones.

I mean, REALLY?  You are going to have to actually defend the premise that 10 year old kids don't know that if they have unprotected sex they could have babies or get diseases.  REALLY?  This is 2015, not 1935.

The part that's utter nonsense is the "government will help you with this" and the "government will help you with that."

I couldn't help but notice the total lack of anything to substantiate your opinion in your response. That's because all the stats back me up; all the data supports the conclusion that schools that don't teach comprehensive sex education have higher incidences of STDs and unintentional pregnancies. Whine about it all you want, it's not helping anything. You didn't counter with anything other than a hypothesis that 'it's the internet age, man, information is out there and stuff.'

And yet, the reality remains the reality.

Sorry, but it IS the information age.  Information isn't something packaged in central government agencies, then doled out by teachers paid by government.   That era went away at the very latest in the 1980s.  That's a long time ago - like comparing the 1930s to the 1960s.

Your premise is totally unsustainable.  Certainly you could argue that states with ready access to planned parenthood abortion offices had an effect on teenager behavior, or many other things.  You could certainly argue that giving out free condoms had an effect.  That's "free stuff."  But to argue that "Teachers" pushing one line of propaganda or another has an effect is ridiculous.

Note that this opinion is irrespective of whether the propaganda pushed is "abstinence" or "comprehenive" or blah blah blah.

[jaysabi]

this trouble with this is it encourages underage kids to fornicate and says dont get pregnant or aids when they do it, this is not good enough

It doesn't. And what's the alternative? Not tell them anything and let them just work it out for themselves? Ignorance will only lead to ignorance and unwanted pregnancies.

Plenty of evidence to back this up already. States with abstinence only programs, instead of comprehensive sex education, have the highest rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies in the country. Comprehensive sex education does a better job of achieving the goals of abstinence only programs than those programs do.

South Carolina ... is part of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) grouping of states consistently boasting the highest rates of STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. The states with the highest STD rates are also those with largely abstinence-only programs. This is not a coincidence: Young people who receive only abstinence-only education tend to engage in riskier sexual health behaviors once becoming sexually active. Southern states report the highest percentage of students having had sexual intercourse prior to age 13; the highest percentage of students who have had intercourse with four or more partners; and the highest incidence of sexual activity without barriers or contraception.

http://news.yahoo.com/abstinence-only-sex-ed-driving-std-rates-203137849.html

You are reciting propaganda.  The very idea that in an Internet+20 years era, government programming in government schools would affect teenager behavior on sex is so absurd.  I mean, really. 

Schools are possibly capable of teaching math, physics, chemistry, English grammar, and the like.  To actually believe they can teach sex is just plain stupid.  The kids know this stuff.   What they don't know they can find out in about 2 minutes on their phones.

I mean, REALLY?  You are going to have to actually defend the premise that 10 year old kids don't know that if they have unprotected sex they could have babies or get diseases.  REALLY?  This is 2015, not 1935.

The part that's utter nonsense is the "government will help you with this" and the "government will help you with that."

I couldn't help but notice the total lack of anything to substantiate your opinion in your response. That's because all the stats back me up; all the data supports the conclusion that schools that don't teach comprehensive sex education have higher incidences of STDs and unintentional pregnancies. Whine about it all you want, it's not helping anything. You didn't counter with anything other than a hypothesis that 'it's the internet age, man, information is out there and stuff.'

And yet, the reality remains the reality.

Sorry, but it IS the information age.  Information isn't something packaged in central government agencies, then doled out by teachers paid by government.   That era went away at the very latest in the 1980s.  That's a long time ago - like comparing the 1930s to the 1960s.

Your premise is totally unsustainable.  Certainly you could argue that states with ready access to planned parenthood abortion offices had an effect on teenager behavior, or many other things.  You could certainly argue that giving out free condoms had an effect.  That's "free stuff."  But to argue that "Teachers" pushing one line of propaganda or another has an effect is ridiculous.

Note that this opinion is irrespective of whether the propaganda pushed is "abstinence" or "comprehenive" or blah blah blah.

Another rebuttal with no substance. All your hypotheticals don't cancel reality. If you want to rebut something concrete, ideas with no factual basis aren't useful.