Hawaii lawmaker renews fight to end or revise controversial sex ed program

[Dos Equis]

so I guess the only thing that is taught in that class is anal sex

Yes, that's exactly what I said.   

[blacken700]

post a link to show that's all they teach in that sex class

[Dos Equis]

post a link to show that's all they teach in that sex class

That's not all they teach in that class.  Read the first post in this thread. 

[RRKore]

Those might be your questions, but I see it differently:  should we do anything to promote or encourage kids to have sex at the ages of 11 and 12?  I think the answer is clearly no.  Many of them have not reached puberty.  The ones who have are in no way, shape, or form ready to be parents.  One hundred percent of them cannot consent to sex, so any sexual activity they engage in involves a crime of some sort. 

We cannot prevent kids from being promiscuous.  A lot of them are going to do whatever they want.  But in terms of public policy, we should only be doing things that promote healthy and legal activity for kids. 

Are you Thai?  

I kid, but you seem more concerned about appearances ("face", to a Thai) than finding effective solutions to important problems.  

This seems foolhardy and doomed to failure, imo.  

Especially since parents that object can always have their kids opt out.  (I would not take away that option.)

[blacken700]

that's all you seem to bring up,what is it a fascination  

[240 is Back]

PIITB.

[Dos Equis]

Are you Thai?  

I kid, but you seem more concerned about appearances ("face", to a Thai) than finding effective solutions to important problems.  

This seems foolhardy and doomed to failure, imo.  

Especially since parents that object can always have their kids opt out.  (I would not take away that option.)

I didn't say anything about appearances.  I talked specifically about what kinds of things we should be teaching as part of public policy.

I agree with McDermott that parents should opt in, not out. 

[RRKore]

I didn't say anything about appearances.  I talked specifically about what kinds of things we should be teaching as part of public policy.

I agree with McDermott that parents should opt in, not out. 

If you're not concerned with appearances, then why do you care about trying to teach abstention?  Do you seriously think it's effective? (Or even can be effective?)  Hormones are more powerful than logic, mang.  Everyone on this board should know a little something about that.

I think I might agree with you (and the scary-looking dad) about opting in, though.  Doesn't sound so bad to me.

[Dos Equis]

If you're not concerned with appearances, then why do you care about trying to teach abstention?  Do you seriously think it's effective? (Or even can be effective?)  Hormones are more powerful than logic, mang.  Everyone on this board should know a little something about that.

I think I might agree with you (and the scary-looking dad) about opting in, though.  Doesn't sound so bad to me.

For the reasons I've already stated about why kids that age cannot make babies, too young to be parents, crime, etc. 

I don't think any method is 100 percent effective.  I just believe that, from a policy standpoint, we should be doing the right thing. 

[RRKore]

PIITB.

Eddie Murphy, is that you?

Am I dirty for what I think that means? lol

[RRKore]

For the reasons I've already stated about why kids that age cannot make babies, too young to be parents, crime, etc. 

I don't think any method is 100 percent effective.  I just believe that, from a policy standpoint, we should be doing the right thing. 

Screw what we "should be doing".  I live in the real world.  Color me more pragmatic than you, I guess. 

And you're edging in disingenuous territory when you mention "100% effective", aren't you? 

100% effective and the idea of abstention shouldn't even be in the same zip code, imo.

Off the top of your head, what percentage of "effectiveness" (if it were possible to accurately measure such a thing) would be low enough for you to ditch the idea of trying to teach abstention?  (I'm very curious to see if you give ANY number as an answer here.)

This dogged insistence on clinging to the idea that abstention teaching is worthwhile isn't related to your religious beliefs, is it? 

You know, the reason why Thailand (hooker central) is doing much better with respect to HIV prevention than other countries that have similar levels of sexual activity is because of their promotion of 100% condom usage (which started in the early 90's).  http://std.about.com/od/prevention/a/thai100condom.htm

I'd be pretty damn surprised if this sort of program would have gotten off the ground in such a big way in a Christian country.  Score one for the Buddhists, I guess.

[Dos Equis]

Screw what we "should be doing".  I live in the real world.  Color me more pragmatic than you, I guess. 

And you're edging in disingenuous territory when you mention "100% effective", aren't you? 

100% effective and the idea of abstention shouldn't even be in the same zip code, imo.

Off the top of your head, what percentage of "effectiveness" (if it were possible to accurately measure such a thing) would be low enough for you to ditch the idea of trying to teach abstention?  (I'm very curious to see if you give ANY number as an answer here.)

This dogged insistence on clinging to the idea that abstention teaching is worthwhile isn't related to your religious beliefs, is it? 

You know, the reason why Thailand (hooker central) is doing much better with respect to HIV prevention than other countries that have similar levels of sexual activity is because of their promotion of 100% condom usage (which started in the early 90's).  http://std.about.com/od/prevention/a/thai100condom.htm

I'd be pretty damn surprised if this sort of program would have gotten off the ground in such a big way in a Christian country.  Score one for the Buddhists, I guess.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  I don't believe we should start teaching kids how to engage in reckless and illegal behavior "safely," just because it's inevitable that some of them (or even a lot of them) will do it. 

I haven't thought about any percentages. 

What I do know is that kids are going to have sex.  And they're going to have unprotected sex.  I've always maintained that condoms don't work, for the simple reason that kids will not consistently use.  Either I or someone else posted an article on here years ago that supported my theory.  So teaching little kids how to use condoms isn't really going to stop the spread of STDs or pregnancy IMO.   

And no, my religious beliefs don't have anything to with my views on what is best for kids.  You're not one of those paranoid anti-religious extremists are you? 

[RRKore]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  I don't believe we should start teaching kids how to engage in reckless and illegal behavior "safely," just because it's inevitable that some of them (or even a lot of them) will do it. 

I haven't thought about any percentages. 

What I do know is that kids are going to have sex.  And they're going to have unprotected sex.  I've always maintained that condoms don't work, for the simple reason that kids will not consistently use.  Either I or someone else posted an article on here years ago that supported my theory.  So teaching little kids how to use condoms isn't really going to stop the spread of STDs or pregnancy IMO.   

And no, my religious beliefs don't have anything to with my views on what is best for kids.  You're not one of those paranoid anti-religious extremists are you? 

Just shocking that you wouldn't answer the percentage question, ya semi-shady debater you.   Didn't see that one coming, lol.

Re: not being in favor of teaching kids about condoms because it won't work while trying to teach 'em to abstain from sex in the same post where you make admissions about the inevitability of them having sex sets off my spider sense (or whatever) because it doesn't seem like it makes sense. 

Unless your point is nothing will work anyway so let's just keep up appearances by saying we're against kid sex. 

BTW, simply teaching them about condom use is of course not going to work unless they also have easy access to condoms.  So if there's a study that tells of both of those conditions existing (how and why to use condoms AND easy access to condoms) and yet the occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy did not go down, then I'd be very surprised.  (Because what happened in Thailand completely contradicts this.)

I AM anti-religion.  I was forced to attend Catholic church for too long to let that go easily.  I don't think I'm so paranoid or extreme about it, but those are pretty subjective terms, so others might think so.

[Dos Equis]

Just shocking that you wouldn't answer the percentage question, ya semi-shady debater you.   Didn't see that one coming, lol.

Re: not being in favor of teaching kids about condoms because it won't work while trying to teach 'em to abstain from sex in the same post where you make admissions about the inevitability of them having sex sets off my spider sense (or whatever) because it doesn't seem like it makes sense. 

Unless your point is nothing will work anyway so let's just keep up appearances by saying we're against kid sex. 

BTW, simply teaching them about condom use is of course not going to work unless they also have easy access to condoms.  So if there's a study that tells of both of those conditions existing (how and why to use condoms AND easy access to condoms) and yet the occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy did not go down, then I'd be very surprised.  (Because what happened in Thailand completely contradicts this.)

I AM anti-religion.  I was forced to attend Catholic church for too long to let that go easily.  I don't think I'm so paranoid or extreme about it, but those are pretty subjective terms, so others might think so.

Nothing shady about my failure to think about things in your head.  That's your issue, not mine.   

I don't think we should be teaching an 11 year old about condoms for a variety of reasons (that I've already stated), not just because they don't work.  And access isn't even remotely an issue.  There are TV commercials about them.  They're all over the internet.  They are cheap.  Don't require an ID to purchase.  They're available for free at some clinics.  Not exactly a secret. 

My point isn't that nothing works.  My point is, again, that from a policy standpoint, our schools (i.e., the government) should only be promoting and teaching things are healthy and legal for kids, and not teach or promote anything that is reckless and/or illegal. 

[StreetSoldier4U]

Teaching the mechanics of human sexuality is a natural part of any biology class.  Teaching sexual habits and lifestyles is not.

[Dos Equis]

Teaching the mechanics of human sexuality is a natural part of any biology class.  Teaching sexual habits and lifestyles is not.

Agree.

[blacken700]

Nothing shady about my failure to think about things in your head.  That's your issue, not mine.   

I don't think we should be teaching an 11 year old about condoms for a variety of reasons (that I've already stated), not just because they don't work.  And access isn't even remotely an issue.  There are TV commercials about them.  They're all over the internet.  They are cheap.  Don't require an ID to purchase.  They're available for free at some clinics.  Not exactly a secret. 

My point isn't that nothing works.  My point is, again, that from a policy standpoint, our schools (i.e., the government) should only be promoting and teaching things are healthy and legal for kids, and not teach or promote anything that is reckless and/or illegal. 

what the hell you talking about condoms don't work,what do you do just make shit up

[RRKore]

Nothing shady about my failure to think about things in your head.  That's your issue, not mine.   

I don't think we should be teaching an 11 year old about condoms for a variety of reasons (that I've already stated), not just because they don't work.  And access isn't even remotely an issue.  There are TV commercials about them.  They're all over the internet.  They are cheap.  Don't require an ID to purchase.  They're available for free at some clinics.  Not exactly a secret. 

My point isn't that nothing works.  My point is, again, that from a policy standpoint, our schools (i.e., the government) should only be promoting and teaching things are healthy and legal for kids, and not teach or promote anything that is reckless and/or illegal. 

Uh, the dodging of questions by simply saying, "Oh, I haven't thought about that" is a little bit shady in my mind.  Refusal to answer for some other reasons I can think of isn't shady, but the way you did it was.  But whateva (especially since it should be pretty clear that I predicted you wouldn't answer that when I asked it. lol).

And, if we're talking about the accessibility of condoms for young teens  (and NOT for you or me), they aren't easily accessible unless they're being given away at places where young people would find themselves.  

So, I'm wondering, how serious a legal offense is it to you when 11- to 13-year olds of roughly the same age have sex with each other?  Is it so serious that you'd choose not to tell them how to minimize the potential destructive results of this illegal act (that is "inevitable" in your words) should they do it anyway?  If you truly think this way I would say that you don't care enough about the kids or society as a whole, then.  

Provide an EFFECTIVE (but humane - no chastity belts, emasculating drugs, or cages, please) method of getting youngsters to abstain and I might agree with your stance.  Absent an effective method, your "solution" to this issue and it's resultant problems is pretty much just for show and won't help a darn thing except for the consciences of the more simple-minded among parents and educators.  

Those kids are gonna keep trampling your lawn until you stop wasting your time yelling and instead find a solution that's actually effective.

BTW, you must be against needle exchange programs, too, right?  

[Dos Equis]

what the hell you talking about condoms don't work,what do you do just make shit up

Go back and read my posts.  I explained why. 

[Dos Equis]

Uh, the dodging of questions by simply saying, "Oh, I haven't thought about that" is a little bit shady in my mind.  Refusal to answer for some other reasons I can think of isn't shady, but the way you did it was.  But whateva (especially since it should be pretty clear that I predicted you wouldn't answer that when I asked it. lol).

And, if we're talking about the accessibility of condoms for young teens  (and NOT for you or me), they aren't easily accessible unless they're being given away at places where young people would find themselves.  

So, I'm wondering, how serious a legal offense is it to you when 11- to 13-year olds of roughly the same age have sex with each other?  Is it so serious that you'd choose not to tell them how to minimize the potential destructive results of this illegal act (that is "inevitable" in your words) should they do it anyway?  If you truly think this way I would say that you don't care enough about the kids or society as a whole, then.  

Provide an EFFECTIVE (but humane - no chastity belts, emasculating drugs, or cages, please) method of getting youngsters to abstain and I might agree with your stance.  Absent an effective method, your "solution" to this issue and it's resultant problems is pretty much just for show and won't help a darn thing except for the consciences of the more simple-minded among parents and educators.  

Those kids are gonna keep trampling your lawn until you stop wasting your time yelling and instead find a solution that's actually effective.

BTW, you must be against needle exchange programs, too, right?  

If I don't feel like thinking about something you brought up, then I'm probably not going to do so.  You have that freedom too.  Nobody is under the gun to answer any question or think about anything they don't want to.  Nothing shady about that.  That's a pretty weird use of the word.

I think your logic is flawed.  We should teach an 11 year old how to use a condom because it's inevitable that he or she might have sex?  Because it's inevitable that some (or even a lot) of kids will shoplift at least once in their youth, should we also teach them how to do it more efficiently so they don't get arrested? 

I think what you're missing is kids need to be taught about sex.  They need to be taught about how the body works.  They need to know where babies come from, etc.  They also need to be given guidance on when it's appropriate for them to have sex.  If we do that, then at the same time tell them how to use condoms, etc., we're speaking out of both sides of our mouth. 

I think parents need to make decisions about what to teach their kids and at what ages to teach them.  But the government?  It should only promote what is safe, responsible, and legal.   

[RRKore]

If I don't feel like thinking about something you brought up, then I'm probably not going to do so.  You have that freedom too.  Nobody is under the gun to answer any question or think about anything they don't want to.  Nothing shady about that.  That's a pretty weird use of the word.

I think your logic is flawed.  We should teach an 11 year old how to use a condom because it's inevitable that he or she might have sex?  Because it's inevitable that some (or even a lot) of kids will shoplift at least once in their youth, should we also teach them how to do it more efficiently so they don't get arrested? 

I think what you're missing is kids need to be taught about sex.  They need to be taught about how the body works.  They need to know where babies come from, etc.  They also need to be given guidance on when it's appropriate for them to have sex.  If we do that, then at the same time tell them how to use condoms, etc., we're speaking out of both sides of our mouth. 

I think parents need to make decisions about what to teach their kids and at what ages to teach them.  But the government?  It should only promote what is safe, responsible, and legal.   

OK, but it seems kind of telling to just stick your fingers in your ears. Though I do imagine it doesn't surprise many on this board that you'd do that so...whateva.

And c'mon, is it getting late for you or what?;  Equating the "crime" of 11- to  13-year olds having sex with each other to the crime of shoplifting?  Were you to give it more thought I bet you could come up with a comparison better than that, couldn't you?

And really, this gets to the heart of why we disagree here;  You seem to think 11- to 13-year old kids having sex is, despite being inevitable for some or many, this huge offense (but your religion has nothing to do with it) while I think it can be relatively harmless as long as no one gets a disease and no one gets pregnant.

You seem to think that the marginal deterrent value of not having sex education taught to 11- to 13-year old kids in school is worth the unwanted pregnancies and (probably much less common) sexual diseases that could result from that.  And you can talk all day long about the fact that kids should get sex ed from their parents but which kids, the ones whose parents talk to them about sex or the ones with parents that don't, do you really think are the ones having the most sex and babies?  I'll answer that -- it's likely the ones whose parents aren't teaching them about sex --- and this is why an opting out system is maybe better than an opting in system.  So, basically, I think that sex is too "in your face" these days, even for 11-year olds, to think that withholding safe sex knowledge is worthwhile.

I'll be fair here (fairer than the guy who puts his fingers in his ears when asked a question he doesn't like) and ask that you don't get me wrong; I wouldn't want my kids of that age having sex even if disease and babies could be avoided.  That's mostly because I'd worry about their emotional health -- it's hard enough as it is to deal with the emotions of kids (especially girls, in my experience) of that age even when you're only talking about what mostly amounts to hardly more than their crushes.

That said, if I found out my kids of that age were having sex I wouldn't let that factor by itself throw me too much.  I'd try hard not to overreact (which might be hard depending on who the partner is).  I'd do just what the sex ed course is supposed to do;  I'd make sure he or she was completely informed about safe sex practices...and I'd try to point out the reasons why having sex at a young age might not be a good idea.  I'd also try to make sure that the sex was the result of mutual desire and not manipulation.  I would still insist on good grades.  I would still insist on chores being done.  And I would still insist that my kid treated everyone in the house with respect.  And if any of that shit was not happening, well punishment like restriction (even if just phone or computer restriction) just got a lot tougher, didn't it?  haha

Note:  Thinking more about it, I'd probably have to stop my wife from doing violence our kid and her partner.  She's Thai and they have a more direct way of child discipline sometimes...

I can't imagine that I could describe by views (and how they differ from yours) any more clearly so I'm sorry but I'm gonna stick my fingers in my ears with respect to any response you might choose to make.  

[Dos Equis]

OK, but it seems kind of telling to just stick your fingers in your ears. Though I do imagine it doesn't surprise many on this board that you'd do that so...whateva.

And c'mon, is it getting late for you or what?;  Equating the "crime" of 11- to  13-year olds having sex with each other to the crime of shoplifting?  Were you to give it more thought I bet you could come up with a comparison better than that, couldn't you?

And really, this gets to the heart of why we disagree here;  You seem to think 11- to 13-year old kids having sex is, despite being inevitable for some or many, this huge offense (but your religion has nothing to do with it) while I think it can be relatively harmless as long as no one gets a disease and no one gets pregnant.

You seem to think that the marginal deterrent value of not having sex education taught to 11- to 13-year old kids in school is worth the unwanted pregnancies and (probably much less common) sexual diseases that could result from that.  And you can talk all day long about the fact that kids should get sex ed from their parents but which kids, the ones whose parents talk to them about sex or the ones with parents that don't, do you really think are the ones having the most sex and babies?  I'll answer that -- it's likely the ones whose parents aren't teaching them about sex --- and this is why an opting out system is maybe better than an opting in system.  So, basically, I think that sex is too "in your face" these days, even for 11-year olds, to think that withholding safe sex knowledge is worthwhile.

I'll be fair here (fairer than the guy who puts his fingers in his ears when asked a question he doesn't like) and ask that you don't get me wrong; I wouldn't want my kids of that age having sex even if disease and babies could be avoided.  That's mostly because I'd worry about their emotional health -- it's hard enough as it is to deal with the emotions of kids (especially girls, in my experience) of that age even when you're only talking about what mostly amounts to hardly more than their crushes.

That said, if I found out my kids of that age were having sex I wouldn't let that factor by itself throw me too much.  I'd try hard not to overreact (which might be hard depending on who the partner is).  I'd do just what the sex ed course is supposed to do;  I'd make sure he or she was completely informed about safe sex practices...and I'd try to point out the reasons why having sex at a young age might not be a good idea.  I'd also try to make sure that the sex was the result of mutual desire and not manipulation.  I would still insist on good grades.  I would still insist on chores being done.  And I would still insist that my kid treated everyone in the house with respect.  And if any of that shit was not happening, well punishment like restriction (even if just phone or computer restriction) just got a lot tougher, didn't it?  haha

Note:  Thinking more about it, I'd probably have to stop my wife from doing violence our kid and her partner.  She's Thai and they have a more direct way of child discipline sometimes...

I can't imagine that I could describe by views (and how they differ from yours) any more clearly so I'm sorry but I'm gonna stick my fingers in my ears with respect to any response you might choose to make.  

Small bites dude.  We already have one poster who posts dissertations on here.  lol

If you think an 11 year old having sex is harmless, then we have diametrically opposed world views.

[RRKore]

Small bites dude.  We already have one poster who posts dissertations on here.  lol
...

No kidding.  Writing that has seriously cut into the time I was planning to use to play Ass Creed 4 tonight.  No lie.  Wife doesn't let me play Xbox when she's home so I'm outtahere again.

(Just came back on to find out, via youtube, how to escape the observatory.)

[Dos Equis]

Good.

Sex ed program faces overhaul
Parents will have to provide their consent under the new rules for Pono Choices
By Nanea Kalani
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jun 07, 2014
STAR-ADVERTISER

Pono Choices, billed as a "culturally responsive" teen pregnancy and disease prevention program, has been under fire since last year's special legislative session on gay marriage.

Parents will now have to opt their children in to participate in the controversial middle-school sex education pilot program Pono Choices, which was reviewed for a second time amid complaints from some lawmakers, church groups and parents about it being medically inaccurate and inappropriate for students as young as 11 years old.

The move to an opt-in versus an opt-out decision is one of a dozen changes the Department of Education announced Friday with the release of a 24-page report by a working group convened in February to review the curriculum.

Pono Choices, billed as a "culturally responsive" program to help reduce teen pregnancies and prevent sexually transmitted infections, has been under fire since last year's special session on gay marriage for classifying the anus as genitalia and including explicit lessons that allegedly minimize dangers associated with anal sex.

The program was developed and is owned by the University of Hawaii-Manoa's Center on Disability Studies. It was taught to 11- to 13-year-olds in five public middle schools this past semester.

The working group's report includes 11 recommendations to improve the curriculum and address public concerns. The Department of Education has formally requested that the university center use the recommendations to revise the curriculum before the 2014-15 school year.

The DOE says no schools will implement Pono Choices — previously one of seven DOE-approved programs for middle schools to use for sexual health education — until the department has received a revised version for review.

The review panel focused on 15 parts of the curriculum that were identified as controversial, including the teaching material's definition of sex, anus, pono and abstinence; a condom demonstration; relationship scenarios that included same-sex couples; and images of sexual and reproductive anatomy parts.

The nine-member panel included the DOE's deputy superintendent, a middle-school health teacher, a principal, a parent representative, a clinical professor of pediatrics and director of adolescent medicine at the John A. Burns School of Medicine, the state Department of Health's adolescent health coordinator and representatives for the Hawaii Pastors Roundtable, Hui for Excellence in Education and Faith Action for Community Equality.

Some of the group's recommendations include:

» Change the definition of sex — defined as oral, vaginal and anal sex — to no longer include the anus under the term genitals.

» Update the text in the parent-night materials to match the exact wording in the curriculum regarding the definition of sex and the actual language from relationship scenarios.

» Update a video — designed to help students develop refusal skills — to more clearly reinforce the abstinence message.

» Remove language from the teachers' script that says male condoms have a 98 percent "perfect use effectiveness rate," which implies it's almost 100 percent effective.

» Revisit the meaning and appropriate use of the word "pono" through a discussion with cultural experts.

State Rep. Bob McDermott (R, Ewa Beach-Iroquois Point), a leader in the charge against Pono Choices and Hawaii's same-sex marriage law, called some of the changes encouraging but said he's still reviewing the full report.

"I am pleased that the parents received a partial victory," he said, "that the ludicrous concept of defining the anus as a genital has been recommended to do away with. The recommendation to be an opt-in is another win, along with disclosing the elevated risk of anal sex."

Garret Hashimoto, another Pono Choices opponent and president of the Hawaii Christian Coalition, said he was relieved to hear the program won't be taught in schools until revisions are made.

"But I will keep on opposing the curriculum as long as it teaches graphic sex education to 11-year-olds," said Hashi­moto, who previously has said he would sue on behalf of concerned parents if the program wasn't significantly amended. "Those teachings belong in the home with the parents."

Separate from the panel's recommendations, the DOE issued a report listing 12 changes it's making "to improve the curriculum review processes and increase parental role in decision-making around sexual health education."

In addition to the opt-in change, the department is asking the Board of Education to review its policies "to provide clarity around the context for classroom discussions about prophylactic devices," or contraceptives. Current policy prohibits the distribution of contraceptive devices in classrooms, on campuses and at school-related activities.

"Let's not forget that the goal of this curriculum and our sexual health education standards, Board (of Education) policies, and state laws, is to reduce unintended teen pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV," schools Superintendent Kathryn Mata­yo­shi said in a statement.

"Given the statistics about Hawaii's youth — the rate of sexual activity, failure to use protection, rate of pregnancy, and the spread of disease — we must work together to ensure students are educated to make better choices."

Nearly 36 percent of isle middle- and high-schoolers say they are sexually active, a drop from 37 percent in 2011 and 44.3 percent n 2009, according to a preview of the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The full results of the latest survey, performed every two years, will not be released until next week, but selected data were shared with the Board of Education last month.

Among Hawaii's sexually active youth, 45.9 percent reported not using condoms during their last sexual intercourse, and 24 percent said they drank alcohol or used drugs before their last intercourse.