Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
Original Poster
#1 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 6:07 AM Last edited by pare321 : 20th Sep 2010 at 4:50 PM.
Default Teens, Sex, and Drugs
One thing I never understood is the method that campaigns like "Above the Influence" to raise drug awareness. They either choose to only teach teens selected exaggerated "facts", or keep them ignorant, by using stupid metaphors, or peer peressure.

What does this commercial have to do with drugs? It features a teenage couple hanging out throughout the day with a vintage indie feel. This is hardly an adequate amount of information for someone to make an informed decision about drugs.
--
Teenagers are also kept ignorant when it comes to sex. In health class, they use scare tactics like shocking images of sexually transmitted disease, and show tragedy porn about teenage girls that were impregnated by a random guy who won't help raise the child. They even have the students carry around a fake baby for two weeks or more, throughout the day that cries "pees" needs to be "fed", and needs attention. The only thing they mention about condoms or birth control is the few times they fail. (Of course, they inflate that number).

In my opinion, the ends do not justify the means- if you kept thirty kids stupid and abstinent, do you consider that a victory?

edit: Pertaining to the U.S. particularly, or any other country where Sex and Drug education is similar.

"You're born naked, and everything else is drag."
dA
Last.fm
tumblr
Advertisement
Top Secret Researcher
#2 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 7:16 AM
Education can be so different depending on your country and school. It also depends on whether you are talking about school education programs or public eduction campaigns.

I found sex ed at school in Australia very good, but drug education needs improvement (especially the public education campaigns - "would you fly with this pilot if he'd being doing speed?" - hell yes, they regularly gave it to pilots in the military... and we'll get there way faster!).

Quote: Originally posted by pare321
In my opinion, the ends do not justify the means- if you kept thirty kids stupid and abstinent, do you consider that a victory?


The problem is that using scare tactics and misinformation doesn't achieve the ends that they are aiming for.
Lab Assistant
#3 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 7:43 AM
I'm assuming you are talking about America, that said, I will agree with you that neither program does enough.

I'm 5-years out of high school, and have lived in one place for most of my schooling. I remember we had "D.A.R.E" programs in elementary school, and every year we had drug awareness week, where we would learn about the harmful effects of drugs. It seemed like the schools actually wanted to prevent it. Although by the end of middle school, some of my naivety began to wear off as labels were given out such as "pot head" and "coke head," and some students would brag about snorting, even snorting sugar at lunch. As for sex-ed, I live in Lower Alabama, so that means churches every block and republicans securing the vote, so that was non-existent. In 5th grade, girls were taken into one room, and boys in another room, we were told about how our body changes and given a time to ask questions. Health class was mandatory in 7th grade, where we learned about STDs and that babies don't come from the stork, we were given robo-babies and graded on how we treated them. That was about two weeks of class time. Nothing else was said about the issue, it was assumed that no one was doing anything, although I do know of a few girls who were "knocked up" by graduation.

I believe that part of the issue might be that the schools still believe that the parent teaches their kid things. However, this is generally not the case. Another issue (at least around here) is that parents get fussy about the smallest thing. I had a high school teacher send home permission slips or memos to parents before she could/would teach about pre-Columbian America due to the fact that she would be giving an overview of their religious practices.
Scholar
#4 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 12:20 PM
I hate those Above the Influence commercials so much, I want to punch myself in the head. They're fucking ridiculous. My friends smokes pot, I've been around him when he's smoking, and I've seen a few of those commercials and thought: "Dudes. Have you ever even been around someone who's high before? Seriously, have you?"

They remind me of commercials from Truth.com. I think I only have to mention just one to make my case.

Big tobacco considered banning sleep. That is seriously what Truth.com was making into a point in one ad.

Above the Influence and other similar crap are just like that.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Lab Assistant
#5 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 12:30 PM
I'm a big believer in legitimate, mandatory sex-ed in America. We need it, we have the ability to teach the facts, we should do it. I never had a sex-ed class in high school. The closest thing I had was an Anatomy & Physiology class senior year where we convinced the teacher to answer our questions. We started out on our typical A&P curriculum, but then we took over and changed the curriculum. By seniors we knew how sex worked, but we got to ask about STDs and good forms of birth control. I'm sure at that point over half of my class had had sex already, and this all should have been addressed years ago.

We shouldn't have to our SexEd through the grapevine, hearing about it from our friends who found out from this guy who found out from that guy who looked it up online. Schools need to have a way better system in place that teaches beyond abstinence. Give it as an option, obviously - only way to prevent STDs & pregnancy, duh.. but not everyone will listen, and if they don't listen, then they need the cold hard facts. My cousin has had three surprise pregnancies, starting when she was 20. She and my cousin are happily married now, but she has a 3 year old, a 2 year old and one on the way. All while on birth control. My aunt's first two children were born while she was on birth control.. It's kind of clear that birth control is not 100% effective and that needs to be taught.

No real opinion on Truth/Above the Influence. I took D.A.R.E. in elementary/middle school. I was a D.A.R.E. Role Model my senior year (though, by then, the D.A.R.E. program had been scrapped to put a police officer into the schools full time and we were like his helpers). I don't do drugs, I never have or will. It's just a personal interest thing for me. I have no interest. I'm not big into the "alter my state of mind" thing. As a runner I'm not interested in putting smoke into my lungs. So yeah, I don't think D.A.R.E. had the biggest effect on most people in my town since drugs are a huge part of people's routine there, so yeah.
Top Secret Researcher
#6 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 12:49 PM Last edited by Kaospilot : 19th Sep 2010 at 2:32 PM.
We had quite straightforward education in sex. Our teacher just sat us down in a circle and explained everything about sex and related things. No "shame" while talking, as if it was the most normal thing in the world and no trying to make it seem more horrible or nice than it is. Just explained that it's normal and basically said that if you want to do it, you should, but don't be sad or worried if it didn't turn out how you thought it would. Just make sure that you do it because you want to. Maybe half of the people had already had sex then but only with boyfriends/girlfriends they had been with for at least 6 months. (at age 13). We also saw a lot of films about pregnancy and even a video of birth (straight on!), tried condoms by stretching them to see how they break, put them on, look at different birth control, looked at what abortion does..

I just think that if you remove the "filth" about having sex so it stops being so secret, then you will remove some problems. Sex wouldn't be a form of protesting or standing out at a young age. Like a friend of mine from another place went to a 30 year old for "experience" so that when she would sleep with her boyfriend, she would know what she was doing. Disgusting. If having sex was something you wanted to do, not something you do because you are a couple and you know all that so sex is one of them, I think things would be better.

The area I grew up in was good. Not much drugs or sleeping around at all.

It was the same with drugs. We didn't have much education in that but teachers told us, no lie, that yes drugs do make you feel good but it does this and that. Very straightforward. If they said it was bad who would believe that? Of course drugs feel good, or else people wouldn't be doing them! But again it was so open in our community that the secret about it was gone and doing drugs was neither shocking or different. It lost it's effect so people didn't bother to try and upset or be a teen rebel.

People did smoke regardless of the shock pictures that were put on the packages but I would say everyone but one (me, eh) quit after a year as the point was?.... none.

In my community, the popular people were those who did good in school, good at sports, took care of others, got along with everyone. I feel pretty lucky

TS3 aliens? Finally! Now give us OFB and proper apartments, damnit! - EA, you are breaking my heart. - I give up.
Mad Poster
#7 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 2:16 PM
The sex-ed at my school was pretty basic. I remember having a couple of sessions about puberty (one at primary school when I was about 10/11 years old, one at secondary school when I was about 13), and one about sex (at secondary school), and they were all very clinical. I don't remember any lessons that dealt with the importance of relationships. I am very clued up about sex-ed, especially compared to some of my friends, but that's only because I learnt pretty much everything I know through reading teen magazines. I find it pretty appalling that I learnt more from Sugar than I did from my school.

Personally I think schools need to start teaching this stuff to kids from an early age. When there are 12 year olds having sex and falling pregnant I think that's a pretty clear sign that it needs to be dealt with before kids hit puberty. And it shouldn't be solely focusing on the biology; kids need to be taught about the importance of relationships - trust and love - because, sadly, many kids don't get this kind of education at home. I also think this is something that should always be dealt with by schools - you can't just rely on parents to teach their kids sex-ed because many don't talk about this stuff with their kids.

Being from the UK we don't have the problems that the US does with teaching abstinence only etc (thank goodness). Religion plays a very minor role here. It's more of a personal thing for people and as such is something quite seperate from politics.

As for education on drugs, I remember having maybe a couple of lessons on it. Back in the 1990s when the whole clubbing/raving scene was quite new and popular, it wasn't uncommon for people to take ecstasy. A girl called Leah Betts hit news headlines after taking E on her 18th birthday and dying. She actually died because she drank too much water after hearing lots of scare-stories about how people on E should make sure they drink plenty in order to avoid dehydration. The story of her death was taught to us as a "drugs are bad" message, and whilst some girls in my class found it really upsetting it didn't seem to actually stop anyone taking drugs.

Tbh I'm not really sure what can be done about drugs. People know the risks but do them anyway because it's a cheap, quick high. I don't really think any amount of education or scare-tactics are going to change that. In a way I kind of think it would be better to legalise them, because then the government can regulate it and that would in many ways make it safer for the people who take them. It would also reduce crime rates. I'm sort of torn with this issue though, because drugs are illegal because they (mostly) are dangerous, however, alcohol and tobacco are legal, and they aren't exactly 'safe', so why not legalise some of the softer drugs, like marijuana?
Scholar
Original Poster
#8 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 4:49 PM
Yes, I'm in the United States. Abstinence only programs are terrible. The kids are taught to just not do it- no matter what, then they don't tell them about condoms or birth control or that they don't have to have sex when in a relationship, because they already told them to just not do it. More often than not, they also tell these teens not to masturbate.

They wonder why a horny teenager who can't masturbate or use a condom ends up having unsafe sex. Teens who were taught abstinence only are less likely to use a condom. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7041301003.html


And I had to learn on my own that cigarettes don't kill babies and aren't made of broken glass, and that pot isn't addictive, doesn't turn you into a criminal, and doesn't make you want to start smoking crack. I still smoke pot from time to time, (using a vaporizer as soon as I could afford one) I'm not a burnout, or and addict, I don't steal from my parents, and I don't hallucinate my dog telling me he's disappointed in me.

I couldn't trust my mom to teach me about drugs either, because she's convinced pot is highly addictive, and is a one-hit killer drug. Children should be taught in school.

"You're born naked, and everything else is drag."
dA
Last.fm
tumblr
Alchemist
#9 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 6:32 AM
*cringes when high school sex ed is mentioned*

not because the education was bad....it was honest as far as i could tell, though a bit....brief.

what sticks with me the most is how stupid the questions the teacher got were. >_<
"can you get pregnant from anal intercourse?" ffffffffffff......

maybe they should teach anatomy while theyre at it.


personally though i abstained from sex, drugs, and alcohol of my own volition. and sure, i got flack for not being "cool" like the kids who were into sex, drugs, and alcohol, but i had my own problems to worry about and quite frankly dont/didnt give a flying ffffff about whether or not they thought i was "cool".

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Forum Resident
#10 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 7:09 AM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
it was honest as far as i could tell, though a bit....brief.
That's what she said?

It is odd to me that sex education and drug education are almost always thrown into the same debate. They're hardly similar issues, and it's not like one can practice taking "safe heroin". Educating about sex as a preventive measure (i.e. encouraging abstinence) is simply bound for failure.
Field Researcher
#11 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 7:42 AM Last edited by unalisaa : 20th Sep 2010 at 8:02 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by Element Leaf
That's what she said?
Educating about sex as a preventive measure (i.e. encouraging abstinence) is simply bound for failure.


Not only that, but it also forces some moral views upon the students, something which I think is damaging.
To have a system free of political bias (for it appears to me that the topic of this debate has turned very much into a political fight), it should be possible to teach about these things in neutral, passive terms. "Some people do this, and to prevent this they do that. Others don't do it at all. That is a personal choice."

Btw: the original post is kind of unclear. OP, did you mean your statements as US-specific or do you genuinely believe this to be the case worldwide?

Quote:
If you kept thirty kids stupid and abstinent, do you consider that a victory?

No. I didn't see why sex is inherently bad. Who cares if people are abstinent or not, as long as whatever they're doing is safe and consensual?
Additionally, I consider withholding information in that way ethically wrong.
Disclaimer: I have never attended a USian class dealing with sex-ed. But it is my impression that kids are told "Sex: don't do it. That is all.", possibly making them think there really isn't more to know. That's deceptive, at best.

One S, two As.
Inventor
#12 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 8:31 AM
Quote: Originally posted by unalisaa
Disclaimer: I have never attended a USian class dealing with sex-ed. But it is my impression that kids are told "Sex: don't do it. That is all.", possibly making them think there really isn't more to know. That's deceptive, at best.


I did attend a USAian sex/health ed class. It was much more in depth than your description. Subjects covered included anatomy, reproduction, contraception, STD's, hygiene and self-esteem. The class was not awkward for me at all.
Instructor
#13 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 9:03 AM
The sex-ed I have had was one of the worst. I think at age 15 I still didn't know what "sex" was and that there is something called ejaculation, erection, ovulation, etc... I really just thought people rubbed their bodies together and the female became pregnant. There was no way I could find out because my parents were probably too uncomfortable about mentioning it, my school programs never offered much and I never watched pornography (had no access to it anyway).
Forum Resident
#14 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 9:39 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Purity4
I did attend a USAian sex/health ed class. It was much more in depth than your description. Subjects covered included anatomy, reproduction, contraception, STD's, hygiene and self-esteem. The class was not awkward for me at all.
The United States is a big place. I have been in similar classes, but the message from my district was clear: Abstinence first, fear second, and safe sex third.
Scholar
Original Poster
#15 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 4:57 PM
Yes, it really depends where you're talking about in the U.S.. National campaigns teach abstinence, in the South and Midwest they mostly teach abstinence, but every once and a while you'll get a teacher who breaks the rules and teaches you what you need to know.

I'm reminded of that scene in Teeth where the students are all in health class, and there's a giant sticker over the page on female anatomy.

Essentially, I think it's that no one wants to teach them because they don't want anyone offended by ookie yucky sex. But the "because I said so" reasoning tends not to work after age 5.

"You're born naked, and everything else is drag."
dA
Last.fm
tumblr
Inventor
#16 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 4:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Element Leaf
The United States is a big place. I have been in similar classes, but the message from my district was clear: Abstinence first, fear second, and safe sex third.


Ya ya, I know. I was responding to the previous commenter who was implying all USA schools are one way, and was showing that not all schools are the same in the great big US of A. I am also aware that my school, located in the progressive pacific northwest, regardless of being majority white/christian population, still offered education rather than pushing a moral agenda.
Mad Poster
#17 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 5:02 PM
Are these abstinence only "teaching" methods a fairly new thing?
Scholar
#18 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 5:07 PM
I can't remember the name, but a long time ago, like, Revolutionary times, there was a religious group in the US. They believed ALL sex was bad, even for procreation. So they were all chaste, even when married.

Yeah, they didn't last long.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Banned
#19 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 6:21 PM
The abstinence only thing being taught in school HAS to be new. I was in 6th grade in 2002, and even back then, they taught us all about the sex organs, why you should wear a condom, different diseases, periods, ect. I asked my friend, who is a senior in high school now, and is three years younger than me what she was taught. Now, they don't even have a health class. And yes, we were in the same school district for some time.

I think teens should be allowed to experiment with sex, as long as they're being safe, and wearing a condom. If they're truly being careful with it, there's nothing wrong with trying it. People have urges, and teenhood is aroud the time where it jumps into overdrive. Again, just use a condom. Birth control for the young ladies probably wouldn't hurt, either.

As for teens and drugs? No. No way.
Instructor
#20 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 6:37 PM
When my daughter is a teenager (God help me) I can say for certainty now that I'd rather her tell me she's been smoking marijuana, than having unsafe sex. I'd much rather her do neither of those things, but if she's anything like me, she's going to do what she wants regardless.

Honestly, I feel alcohol was the biggest problem with my teenage-years friends. They would drink, and lose inhibitions, and then all the bad stuff would follow.

Please consider taking part in LifesLover's "The Build To Plan" Contest. You'll make new friends and have tons of fun!
Mad Poster
#21 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 6:40 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
I can't remember the name, but a long time ago, like, Revolutionary times, there was a religious group in the US. They believed ALL sex was bad, even for procreation. So they were all chaste, even when married.
Yeah, they didn't last long.


Are you thinking of the Shakers? I think there's still a small community left. They got members from outside recruitment instead of inside procreation.

There's a lot of hypocrisy about sexuality and drugs directed at teens from adults - 'Sex is fun and I'll put images of it everywhere to sell things, but don't do it until you're a certain age or until married.' 'Drugs are bad but I can't get through the day without my Xanax or alcohol.'
Parents are the best role models - they can model everyday the behavior they hope their kids will emulate.
Mad Poster
#22 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 6:47 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
I can't remember the name, but a long time ago, like, Revolutionary times, there was a religious group in the US. They believed ALL sex was bad, even for procreation. So they were all chaste, even when married.

Yeah, they didn't last long.


I think you're talking about the Shakers. They didn't like marriage and baby-making... so the only way to keep up their numbers was with adoption or adult converts.

But on the other end of the spectrum, you've got the Quiverfulls, whose goal is to have as many babies as possible.

Abstinence-only education probably helps both groups. The Shakers benefit because they value celibacy. The Quiverfulls benefit because abstinence-only education leads to ignorant kids who go and have sex anyway and who don't know how to protect themselves from pregnancy.
Scholar
#23 Old 20th Sep 2010 at 9:04 PM
I got my first sex ed from my parents. They had a bit of an abstinence slant to what they told me, but they still told me how things worked, without holding back. I got a very rudimentary sex ed lesson in 5th grade, but it didn't teach me much that I didn't already know. I got much better sex ed classes in 8th and 9th grade. Those had pictures and videos to explain anatomy and STDs, as well as talking about contraception. It was taught in a pretty neutral manner. I think there might have been one video that had a bit of a slant toward abstinence, but then there were other videos and lectures that were focused on information and protection. I think the school was just trying to cover the bases. I don't think that my sex education was inadequate, though it can be a little difficult to separate the things that I learned from my parents vs. from the school.

I always thought the drug awareness programs relied too heavily on preaching to the choir. I already knew that I wasn't going to try drugs, but I had to sit through assemblies about it every year. I think it would have been better to simply do the basic drug lecture as part of the assembly on student conduct so we wouldn't have to sit through an hour long assembly purely dedicated to drugs and their effects every year.
Field Researcher
#24 Old 21st Sep 2010 at 2:53 AM
I was taught sex-ed in Grade 7 and a little from my parents before that. I live in Canada and far as I know abstinence-only aren't as prevalant as our neighbour's and I joke about how sexually repressed the next generation will be in the US. Our programs are usually comprehensive do encourage abstinence but do address STD's, birth control, and other health risks. I do feel it is the parents responsibilty to teach them something about sex but realistically we can't count on that for kids who come from very conservative or very religious parents.(My Mom grew up in the bible belt and my grandma was the only one who talked to her kids about sex). My town unfortuntly has a high teen pregnancy rate but I think it a combination of lack of activities and parents not giving a shit what their kids do and sex-education or lack of is not the only thing contributor to teen pregnancy. (Believe it or not I don't live in a highly religious town)

I am a non-smoker and always found the anti-smoking ads to be dumb. Several years ago we had comercials where someone would do something asinine like having a toaster next the bath or holding a lightining rod during a thunder storm saying you have a 1 in 800 chance or dying from toast in the bath but with smoking my chances of dying are like 1 in 2 what's more stupid.

The stupidest anti-drug comercial I was seen was these 2 teen boys most just smoking pot and one see's a gun and shots himself in the head while high than the it says Marijuana Harmless? Yeah cause that totally happens all the time when people smoke pot.

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people!
Field Researcher
#25 Old 21st Sep 2010 at 3:29 AM
So would I be hated If I was "That guy" who did drugs, had sex, got in fights, and drank durring his teen years?

American Rocker Bomb, similar to an Irish car bomb, take a shot glass and fill it with five hour energy, then take a pint glass and fill it with your choice of energy drink. Drop in the shot glass and chug, then wait for SVT to set in.
 
Page 1 of 4
Back to top