I would argue that many parents do "inform" their children -- and those same children believe (as SG did) that it won't happen to them. Teen pregnancy rates are down from the levels they achieved in the 1950s, and now we are no longer focusing on the low-hanging fruit (if you will) of kids who listen and understand the first time. Tell 'em, keep telling 'em, and test them occasionally. Then, maybe, just maybe, they'll get it.

Kids think they are invincible and bad things only happen to other people.

Yes, many parents do inform their kids about safe sex, mine did, and I have had no problems in that area. But that isn't my point. My point is that STDs should be treated as a social problem and public schools should do what they can to help further lower STD and pregnancy rates. This is because even no matter how well a parent teaches their kids about safe sex, it only takes one mistake. A 99.9% record of not making dumb decisions means absolutely nothing if someone gets pregnant or picks up an STD during that 0.1%. I can say from personal experience that dumb decisions are easy to make when you are drunk and being pushed into something, especially for teenagers.

While I personally will guarantee that my potential future children will learn about safe sex and the consequences of unprotected sex, I would feel better if schools joined in as well since I will not know who is raising the kids that my kids may sleep with. Also, even with using precautionary measures, condoms do break, boy/girlfriends cheat, and some STDs can even be transferred through oral sex. So even if the chances of school taught safe sex having an impact is small, for me, it would still be worth it.

Well this mindset arises from the fact that many of these kids are pampered throughout their childhood. I never really had that mindset, but I also learned consequences from my actions early on. But yet, even without that invincible mindset, mistakes, bad decisions, and bad luck can still occur.

Although I agree with most of what you say, I shared a piece of my past to prove that intelligent, well-educated, sensible teens can still act like they have a Get Out Of Jail Free card in their back pocket. I was not pampered - I'd say almost the opposite. I was very much taught that every action has a reaction and my parents would not love me if I screwed up. And a teen pregnancy was the worst way of screwing up imaginable (STD could be hidden after all).

Good kids from well intentioned homes and decent parents screw up too.
I was 16 - which seemed so old to me then.
But I can imagine how much more daunting the whole world of sex is if you're 13, 14 etc. Too young? Yes of course. But Juliet was only 14 in Shakespeare's play. Let's not pretend it's a modern issue.

I never said good kids from well intentioned homes don't screw up, in fact, I mentioned that many times. I've lived with the consequences of my actions in other areas for over a year and I expect to live with it for the rest of my life. I'm in the same boat. I was a intelligent, well-educated, sensible 20 year old who made a single decision that has made a major impact on my life.

Because of this, I fully understand why children with good parents can still make mistakes. And because of this, I would like schools to teach safe sex because that child with good parents could make a mistake with another child who hasn't had anyone to teach him or her safe sex. That could result in a very bad situation for the first child.

Also, I am not trying to make it sound like school taught safe sex has a drastic impact on student safe sex practices, but any drop in STD or pregnancy rates is worth it to me.


BTW, my pampered comment was not directed at anyone who has made a mistake because they failed to see all outcomes of a given decision. That is impossible for any teenager to achieve. My pampered comment was directed at teenagers who truly do not believe that any bad can happen to them because they have never learned the consequences of their actions. SG, you were obviously not one of those children.

I don't know when they changed it, but the age of consent in Victorian London was 12.

Yes, T-W-E-L-V-E.

Maybe Drax is off building a time machine?

haggis!

Yeah, but wasn't the average life expectancy like, 15?

You don't have to go so far back in time to see that, ZG -- my grandmother was married at nine years old. She's 84 now so it was a while ago, but not that long.

Well the victorian era didn't end till around the turn of last century, so it's close to the same time frame. Only 10 or twenty years off. ;)

D'oh!

You know what. I found out the other day that my 12 year old has been masturbating. It was accidental while I was looking for something on his computer. lol

I knew it probably had been happening, but I really just didn't need to read about it.

..and I would say he doesn't need to write about it.


Just do it, ya know :D

At age 12 it's only abnormal if he doesn't do it twice a day.

Pierce, you have to keep her article in the context of her own background and demographic. She is an educated black woman who grew up in Savannah, a majority black town. She is often speaking to her base and to those she know will listen to her. I believe her message is on target.

Pierce, I wasn't offended. I just feel that sometimes there's an "us and them" situation re younger people and stupid behaviour. You're holding your hands up, and that's what I was doing too.

Merc - I think that makes it worse.
She is ANTI testing of teens and yet she's an educated woman?
I sort-of get parents who are anti-sex (like it works?!), anti-contraception or anti-abortion. Although I don't agree with them. And it tends to come from a religious issue. Which I completely don't agree with - don't let your kids fuck their lives up because of a magic book. But I know my view is not a mainstream one.

But I don't get parents who are anti-reality. I think another Dwellar has already said this, but would she (the author of the article) be the same if it was lupus or sickle cell anaemia? No of course not! And why? Oh because the children with STDs are already guilty. Written off, I guess. And no, she didn't write that - but she extrapolates in her article, so I'm just joining the party :)