Playboy in Bed with “Comprehensive” Sex Ed
— Posted by John (June 9, 2006 at 4:29 pm)
Yesterday I joined several dozen teens, parents, and abstinence educators to protest outside of Playboy magazine’s headquarters in downtown Chicago.
It’s not as if we needed a particular reason to protest outside the Playboy offices, but after learning what was scheduled to take place there, I would have felt guilty had I not taken part.
We were there to protest a fundraiser benefiting the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health — a group that has recently partnered with Planned Parenthood of Greater Chicagoland to form a coalition whose goal is to strip all funding of abstinence-only education for Illinois schools and instead require them to use condom-based sex education programs. They recently succeeded in doing so in the Chicago Public Schools.
It’s fitting, then, that CPS students played a major role in yesterday’s protest. 
This fundraiser tells us everything we need to know about the advocates of so-called comprehensive sex education. (You can view the invitation to the event here [PDF].)
Folks willing out to shell out $75 for a ticket were promised “a night of provacative performance” featuring a selection from the “hit show S-e-x-Oh!” by a group called Teatro Luna.
Those willing to cough up another fifty bucks had the chance to participate in an “intimate Q & A with [Time Out Chicago] sex columnist Debby Herbeneck”. The extra $50 also entitled one to “a tour of the Playboy offices and art collection[!]” … and, last but not least, a VIP reception with Christie Hefner.
Christie Hefner, daughter of Hugh Hefner, who founded Playboy in 1953, has been its CEO since 1982. She was the one who decided that the company could make more money by producing increasingly harder-core pornography — something that even her father was reluctant to do for a long time. (See here, here, and here for references.)
In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times in 2003, Christie Hefner said:
Playboy readers don’t see a difference between desiring women and respecting women. They have no problem reading a magazine that tells them that lesbians should have custody rights, and when a woman says “no” — even if her panties are off — it means “no,” and looking at Cindy Crawford and saying: ‘God, she’s beautiful.”
Playboy has readers?
Apparently Christie Hefner hasn’t learned much about the connection between pornography and violence against women.
To her, Playboy and other forms of pornography, as well as all so-called free expressions of sexuality, are not only harmless, but good.
It’s no surprise, then, that she was chosen by Illinois’ leading advocates of “comprehensive sex education” to be the guest of honor at their annual fundraiser.
This entry is filed under Culture Wars, Sexuality, The Front Lines. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Student Teacher says:
Teaching abstinence-only is like teaching geometry-only or Ancient Egypt-only. It’s not the complete picture. The skills that students learn in comprehensive sex ed classes will help them make informed decisions before AND after marriage, because those classes include instruction about pap smears (which test for cervical cancer as well as STDs) and long-term contraceptive choices (like tubal ligation and vasectomies). Not everyone has a doctor willing to take the hour needed to discuss these issues with married women, so including them in the K-12 curriculum (at an appropriate age level) helps to ensure that everyone is educated- including sexually active married adults in monogamous relationships!
Comment posted June 9th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
rosie says:
Just one more reason to home school…. what next?
Comment posted June 9th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Lauren says:
HOLLA AT YOU STUDENT TEACHER!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are awesome! Students have the right to know how to protect their bodies and keep right-wingers agendas off of them! I am so grateful for my sex education and contrary to what these people tell you, sex education did not force me or any of my other classmates to have sex. It told us how to do it without getting pregnant or contracting an STI or HIV. They are a blessing from GOD!
Comment posted June 9th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Lauren says:
“Playboy has readers?”
Actually, yes. And I myself am one of them. God made us into sexual creatures. DEAL WITH IT.
There is a difference between art and pornography and I’m sorry that you don’t see the difference. Playboy is NOT porn, and while I would never take off my clothes for the magazine and many other women don’t, it is a sign of the times when women are allowed to without being thrown into the streets and stoned. SEXUAL FREEDOM HALLELUJAH!
Here’s a newsflash, it’s their BODIES and not YOURS, and that’s the entire beauty of it! That they maintain control over their bodies..
Should we go back to the days where sex was whispered about? Is sex naughty to you? Is it naughty when it’s out of marriage? MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.. WORRY ABOUT YOURSELF. WORRY ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN. QUIT BEING SUCH A MEDDLER AND A BUSY BODY!
Comment posted June 9th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Just one more reason to home school…. what next?
Amen.
Comment posted June 9th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
rosie says:
We need to focus on the word children, we’re not talking about college students/adults(K-12). Parents really should have a say about where and when and what their children learn about sex. It should be taken out of school all together and left to the parents ,and if not they should let the parents opt their kids out of the class. You said before that you want your kids to learn about sex from you Lauren.
Comment posted June 9th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Lucy says:
The thing is, I don’t think that the government should have the right to impose sex education on students whose parents are opposed to their children learning about it for any reason. I also don’t believe that the government should have the right to deny sex education to the children of the people who also pay taxes and would like it offered. At our school the parents had to sign permission slips for us to take the class. Those who did not have a permission slip signed simply sat aside feeling awkward, embarrassed and left out.
I don’t see the harm of children learning how their body works, in fact I can easily see the benefits. There isn’t an instruction manual being handed out, and being informed that condoms exist is not the worst thing that could happen. The fact is that as long as kids are being sent into a school system, and private vs public is irrelavant, they will learn about sex. The questions are who do you want teaching it. It’s a bit like drugs. Just because they know that there are drugs, and they will know that there are drugs, doesn’t mean they will use them. Health classes usually cover drug education as well. As the commercials say, if you tell them at home, they’ll listen. Okay, so the commercials are optimistic at best, but the point is. The information is there no matter what.
Comment posted June 9th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Aine says:
Lauren says, ” . . . and while I would never take off my clothes for the magazine . . .”
I don’t even think you were aware of how many volumes you spoke . . .
Comment posted June 10th, 2006 at 8:51 am
mary kay says:
Lucy,
Lucy says:
“It’s a bit like drugs. Just because they know that there are drugs, and they will know that there are drugs, doesn’t mean they will use them. ”
It is one thing to educate children on the dangers of drugs, and quite another if they were teaching children the nuances of how to free base and get the best high, how to “roll your own” or how to shoot up heroin responsibily.
By the same token, sex outside of marriage is dangerous, and teaching them how to lessen the dangers by using condoms is a little like teaching them to lesson the dangers of cocaine use by only using clean dollars bills…
If schools want to teach the biology of sexuality, that is one thing. Teaching them about menstruation and or how babies are made is not treading on any moral issues. Telling them how not to get a sexually tranmitted disease or how to prevent pregnancy is. And kindergartners don’t need ANY sex ed. That’s is just insane.
I recently heard an article on a teacher somewhere on the east coast reading second graders a fairy tale about a king who was trying to find the prince a princess. The prince however was not interested in princesses, but preferred another prince. The final picture was of the two prince’s kissing. This is so inappropriate I was left apoplectic! Why are 7 year olds even being introduced to this? They are not ready for heterosexual information let alone alternatives.
If you are going to separate church and state, then separate it all together. To blatantly teach something that is looked upon as morally wrong by 1/2 the population of the country is not separating anything. It is “forcing” us to see the world in a way in which we disapprove. And it forcing our children to be exposed to morals to which we object. If we can’t celebrate christmas, or have the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance, then for heavens sake why can we have the morality of another group forced on us? That seems like having your cake and eating it too.
While I hate the idea of even high schoolers learning how to use a condom in school, at least it shows that someone was trying (no matter how miserably I think they failed) to show some responsibility by saving this material for an age appropriate setting. But second grade? Kindergarten? God help us!
MK
I’m not yelling at you personally, just venting…sorry if I sounded heated…
Comment posted June 10th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Lauren says:
“If we can’t celebrate christmas, or have the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance, then for heavens sake why can we have the morality of another group forced on us? That seems like having your cake and eating it too. ”
Morality of another group? How is this the morality of another group? This is fact. I can speak anecdotally about the kids who were having sex, getting pregnant, and consequently have abortions. It almost always was the kids of the parent who smothered them with abstinence only and fed them the “not my kid” crap. The kids who went nutso in college as well had the most overbearing religious parents as well.
As for not having God in school, blame the founders of the Constitution. Move to a religious country. I don’t believe I nor anyone else should be forced to believe what you believe. That’s what private schools are for. Do you really think you have the right to force your religion on other people? If people entirely bought into your religion, you wouldn’t have to find these extreme means. People don’t believe what you believe as hard as this may sound to you.
Who’s stopping you from celebrating Christmas? Last I checked most schools have a winter break that coincides with Christmas, along with Christmas-themed plays, and Sundays off of school. Don’t give me this disenfranchisement BS, because it doesnt work!
“We need to focus on the word children, we’re not talking about college students/adults(K-12). Parents really should have a say about where and when and what their children learn about sex. It should be taken out of school all together and left to the parents ,and if not they should let the parents opt their kids out of the class. You said before that you want your kids to learn about sex from you Lauren. ”
They do have a says last I checked and you can opt-out of sex ed for your child if you feel necessary. I find it a little foolish, but whatever. Why are you so scared of your children having information? If they’re that dedicated to abstinence this should not be a problem for them. Believe me after being shown pictures of genital warts, childbirth, and chlymadia, Sex ed is HARDLY a proponent of sex. If anything it makes you want to abstain, lol. I leave the science up to the health ed class. believe me if you saw my ACT score which went a litlte something like this. English: 35, Reading: 30 Math: 32 Science: 20, youwouldn’t want me teaching anything scientific to my children. I will however teach them about love and self-respect (NOT in the confines of marriage).. Last I checked but marriage is merely a ceremony. My parents got married but it didnt mean they loved one another.
So it leaves me with one question, if you teach your children to believe what you believe, why are you so scared of them finding out the truth about sex?
Kindergarden or second grade? Where are you getting this from MK?
Comment posted June 10th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Pansy Moss says:
Sex education should not be taught in schools. If there are parents who feel this type of education is complementary with their culture, then their should be a program outside of the school that they can take part in. But it should not be forced on people whose culture this does not belong to.
Again, school system would not dare have a home ec class where they teach Muslim kids that all kids have to eat beef, and if their family follows age old traditions of not eating beef, they are behind the times.
I am not sure why these public school systems feel they can take what is a private matter to be decided amongst parents, and take over.
Also, even if you believed in the contraception side of things, sex ed is not that difficult to grasp that it needs to be taught in every grade, for even a full marking period.
So it leaves me with one question, if you teach your children to believe what you believe, why are you so scared of them finding out the truth about sex?
Because your version of sex is not the truth to us, but a big, fat, misleading lie that leads people to mistreat and devalue one another. If you don’t buy that, that is your choice, but it is not what I want my children to be taught-and I should not be required to.
Comment posted June 10th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Mary Kay says:
Lauren,
lauren says:
“Kindergarden or second grade? Where are you getting this from MK? ”
Student teach said:
” Not everyone has a doctor willing to take the hour needed to discuss these issues with married women, so including them in the K-12 curriculum (at an appropriate age level) helps to ensure that everyone is educated- including sexually active married adults in monogamous relationships!
K-12.
Mary Kay said:
“I recently heard an article on a teacher somewhere on the east coast reading second graders a fairy tale about a king who was trying to find the prince a princess. The prince however was not interested in princesses, but preferred another prince. The final picture was of the two prince’s kissing. This is so inappropriate I was left apoplectic! Why are 7 year olds even being introduced to this? They are not ready for heterosexual information let alone alternatives. ”
2nd grade.
Mary Kay also said:
” If we can’t celebrate christmas, or have the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance, then for heavens sake why can we have the morality of another group forced on us? That seems like having your cake and eating it too.
Never said we should, just said we can’t. And if WE can’t then why can those pressing the sex ed agenda?
MK
Comment posted June 10th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Pansy Moss says:
I can speak anecdotally about the kids who were having sex, getting pregnant, and consequently have abortions. It almost always was the kids of the parent who smothered them with abstinence only and fed them the “not my kid” crap. The kids who went nutso in college as well had the most overbearing religious parents as well.
I just want to address this common urban legend. Yes, just like there are people of all walks of life , I am sure this is true for some people but:
1. So what? A parent’s job is not to control their children, but to teach them, guide them, and to pass to them the tools from what they have learned in the hopes that they use them. They may reject them. That is their option. But you hope that if they stumble and felt the need to see with their own two eyes everything their parents have been warning them against, if they have a good, moral foundation to fall back on. Hopefully they will realize why things aren’t working out the way PP told them it would as long as you use a condom.
Stealing is immoral and illegal. By this same theory, it seems to me that if you tell your kids “do not steal”, in college they will start stealing like crazy because I pushed this “do not steal religious crap” down their throats? If that even were true, that does not change my responsibility to teach my kids not to steal.
2. Growing up, their were two groups of kids, kids who were taught to abstain, and kids who were taught that sex was OK before marriage provided they used condoms. Just about all the kids in the “sex is OK” group were having sex while in the first group, some were obedient and decided to wait. Not all. I didn’t. I was being disobedient, but my disobedience had nothing to do with my parents shoving something down my throat (frankly, I think the problem was we didn’t speak about it enough at home to counter the endless hours and hours it was being spoken about it school). It had to do with the fact that during my waking hours, I was surrounded by teachers and other kids who said sex with a condom is just fine. In my mind, even back then, it’s not that I thought the idea of a teenager not having sex was whacky or out there, I just thought the people around me were so cool, and weren’t getting into trouble because that didn’t really happen. My parents were just naturally over concerned. I wanted to fit in with my peers. The problem was, the line of thinking of the other culture that was more subtle was “sex is OK if you use condoms, and if you get pregnant-abort”. Grils were having abortions, which on the outside looked like no one got into trouble. That was not an option for me, and throws a monkey wrench into the premarital sex thing. The fact is, it was selfish of me to create a child without the stability of a marriage for a child.
3. I think many people use the “it was all my parents’ fault” excuse for not just blaming them for teaching abstinance, but for a number of reasons when they f*^k up. I saw a guy on TV who was a recovering alcoholic who said it was his parents fault because they never had alcohol around. I understand blaming parents for abuse and cruelty, but for doing their best? More and more you see this “My mother smoked pot and had lots of boyfriends, but i hand it to her for keeping it real.” Give me a break, that’s just scapegoating and it is not taking personal responsibility for actions. It is much easier to say “well, I was so stupid because I didn’t know better because my parents wanted me to wait until marriage…” than to say “I knew better, but I was selfish and did what I wanted to do anyway, and now I have to live with the consequences…” which can run the gambit from a broken heart, bad reputation-right to STDs and abortion.
Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 5:10 am
Quinn says:
More evidence that only fools send their kids to publiK sKuls.
Don’t try and reform public schools, just get the kids out of them.
By the way, I have a blog on my site that has the story and pics from a porn outreach at a magazine signing I led in Ft Wayne a few weeks ago. Check it out http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=18289974&blogID=123092096&MyToken=1a6524e2-bbc6-42c6-97fc-297b0614ccb5
Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Lauren says:
Hahahah Quinn… lmao.
“Sex education should not be taught in schools. If there are parents who feel this type of education is complementary with their culture, then their should be a program outside of the school that they can take part in. But it should not be forced on people whose culture this does not belong to. ”
You are the minority Pansy. Most parents want their children to have sex ed.
Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Quinn says:
Lauren said
“You are the minority Pansy. Most parents want their children to have sex ed.”
Give some support to back up your claim that most parents want their kids to learn how to use condoms and birth control methods within a school curriculum instead of abstinance only.
Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
I for one agree that there is a bit of a problem concerning Public Schools. Afterall, regardless of your opinion regarding what is or is not taught within the classrooms your tax dollars will be invested in the lessons without question. The frustration is related to ideas you mentioned in another post, that no matter whose ideas we go with someone is going to feel short changed. Don’t teach Sex ed and I’m not happy. Teach it and your not happy and we are both paying for it. When we pay for a product we expect to get something we wanted…or needed.
If memory serves overall sex ed is a run down of the biology of sex. There is mention of how abstinance is the only way to guarantee against pregnancy or disease. It isn’t stressed, but it’s mentioned with enough emphasis that it is heard. There is discussion of the potential diseases…fear factor. Then there is a mention of possible birth control options including the condom. I do know that there were teachers who would bring in a banana or something for demonstration purposes, but overall I don’t know that here was a big how to lesson. I personally would be more than willing to concede the whole banana bit. However, I think that overall information on options is neccessary if the expectation is that these students will become responsible adults capable of making decisions that effect their life in the most positive way available.
Yet, I do concede that the Public School system offers a complicated problem because inevitably someone will pay for something they didn’t want. Regarding the issue of Kindergartners, I completely agree. I can’t think of a reasonable excuse for teaching them anything about sexuality. If someone has one I’d be interested in hearing it, but I certainly cannot concieve of any such thing existing. I’m willing, without evidence that I am wrong, to hold to this being an unneccessary invasion upon their childhood until puberty begins to set in. I think that these days ten or eleven are generally considered a good time to begin with most of these ideas.
No matter what, I believe that this has to be covered in the home as well. Whether the message that is delivered is an urrgency of absolute abstinance or safety if at all. I think that this is important because I believe that the more respect an individual has for their own body the less likely they are to have sex before they are ready, and can define what ready is. They are also more likely to use protection in the instance they have sex. There is also the factor that the fact that there is the opportunity for dialogue will give them a greater sense of confidence that they have a source to turn to. In the instance of young girls who are exposed to pressure to be sexual at earlier and earlier ages these days….I don’t know of any of you are familiar with a phenomenon called ‘Club Libby Lu’…how to handle the pressure. What to do in any given situation.
The lessons on drugs and sex actually have similar purposes. Both wish to arm students with as much information as possible from professional, educated sources. This way if a child ends up on a street corner and offered the opportunity to try…fill in drug of choice…because it will make them stronger…they can go through their collection of information and say I don’t remember what it does, but it was a bad one. No, thanks anyway. In the same manner, it is intended to increase the chances that a young girl will say, sure, but you’re not going to get pregnant. Thanks, but No thanks.
Of course, it inarguably doesn’t always work out this way. I believe however, that this is the intention.
Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Pansy Moss says:
You are the minority Pansy. Most parents want their children to have sex ed.
I don’t make my choices just to follow what everyone else, but what is right and what is a choice made actually utilising my brain cells. Most people are sheep and will follow each other off a cliff.
Being a minority is the story of my life-I’ve grown proud of it.
I never said my children will not get sex ed, just not the Playboy version or in such a demeaning setting.
Afterall, regardless of your opinion regarding what is or is not taught within the classrooms your tax dollars will be invested in the lessons without question.
But schools are for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. That should be taking up their time. Yes, ex ed is biology, but it it so much more emotionally, morally, religiously to many. It should be handled with care. This is why people have families.
Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Sunnyday says:
It’s not the schools’ duty to give sex education to students. It’s the parents’ responbility to do that. Parents know their children enough to determine each child’s level of maturity, personality and readiness to understand and absorb what. If the parents can’t say that they know their children enough, then they can always (and ought to) try. In the absence of parents then there are other members of the family/older relatives to guide the children.
But it seems like some parents are shunning their basic parental responsibilities by relying on the educational system to carry these out for them. And some sectors who are up to no good are welcoming the chance to teach the kids things that hinder them from becoming responsible, life-loving and life-respecting adults who have a genuine sense of service.
Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
joe says:
Student Teacher wrote, “Teaching abstinence-only is like teaching geometry-only or Ancient Egypt-only.”
Why teach sex education at all? I would like to know precisely how America has improved since introducing any kind of sex education. Men and women have a more difficult time than ever getting along. The divorce rate has skyrocketed. Students need to be put on all sorts of prescription drugs just to get through school. And the liberals on this site somehow think this is progress. I don’t think so.
Un-manipulated children (even in their teens) have a natural aversion to romantic and sexual situations. This is by design. Monkeying with young children in this way only makes them unhappy.
Read the posts from the sexually charged contributors to this site, and the first thing you will notice is how angry they are. I say their anger comes from being sexually frustrated. Which is the root of all of our trouble; sexually frustrated people killing their offspring because they are so unhappy.
Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Lucy says:
Joe,
The divorce rate has skyrocketed partially due to the fact that marriage is now a choice and not a buisness arrangment. Women may now pursue carreers that allow them to support themselves, allowing them to leave the confines of a marriage they would have otherwise remained within despite whatever unhappiness they might have experienced within it. Essentially, women have the right to their own lives. Previously, women were in large prevented from entering the work place and were largely prevented from playing any realistic role in determining how their lives would operate. Yes, this is progress. That we are still learning what to look for in a mate before marriage is an indication that this is a mark of progress, not completion of a journey. I think that we as women also need to understand that marriage is not something that is needed to make us whole people. For many women marriage is still an emblem for self worth. An example set by history.
That students are on prescription drugs just to make it through school is partially related to sophistication in medical science. First, these are children who in many cases may not have previously made it through school. Marxism, it does manage to appear from so many directions.
I was angry because people were accusing me of things that were inaccurate or saying things to me that were less than kind. It wasn’t because I was or am sexually frustrated. Frustrated sure, sexually, no.
Un-Manipulated Children? Aversion to Romantic and Sexual Situations? Natural? I’m afraid I’m at a loss for what any of this means.
I do agree that pretending that human beings are somehow not sexual creatures, and that children will not begin to experience the developement of this part of themselves is certainly damaging.
Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 12:18 am
Pansy Moss says:
Joe,
I agree with everything you said.
Lucy,
The divorce rate has skyrocketed partially due to the fact that marriage is now a choice and not a buisness arrangment. Women may now pursue carreers that allow them to support themselves, allowing them to leave the confines of a marriage they would have otherwise remained within despite whatever unhappiness they might have experienced within it. Essentially, women have the right to their own lives. Previously, women were in large prevented from entering the work place and were largely prevented from playing any realistic role in determining how their lives would operate. Yes, this is progress.
I agree with your first sentence, that marriage is not held in esteem anymore, but I don’t think this is progress at all. I think this shows a lack of love, respect and commitment in our culture. Through birth control and abortion, men have been rewarded the ability to have the milk without buying the cow.
I am not sure why women need to act like men to feel “self-worth” or “self-esteem”. I don’t see this as “having their own lives”. Having a man freely sleep with you and using your body for pleasure without is not a step in the right direction for women.
In traditional roles, women getting married and taking care of children while men provide, both parties worked hard and gave a lot for the sake of the family. The jobs were different because men and women are extremely different in so many ways, but both jobs were equally as important.
I think that we as women also need to understand that marriage is not something that is needed to make us whole people
I don’t know. Self esteem is a seperate issue altogether, regardless of income, marriage whatever…But the fact that marriage itself as an institution should be held in high esteem still rings true. With all the “progress” women have made with careers and whatnot, people of the opposite sex still look to each other for company, comfort and companionship. Marriage is an institution set so that people will not just use each other and walk away, so that love and commitment come over mere selfishness. It is there to protect both parties and the children. By making the commitment aspect old fashioned, you have more unhappy people looking for something more in relationships they will never get.
I was angry because people were accusing me of things that were inaccurate or saying things to me that were less than kind.
I cannot speak for Joe, but I think he was referring to other people who responded with things like “hah ha lmao” and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.. WORRY ABOUT YOURSELF. WORRY ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN. QUIT BEING SUCH A MEDDLER AND A BUSY BODY! instead of just matter of factly expressing your opinion like you did.
I may not agree with your opinion, but I respect you for opening up a dialogue in a polite manner.
Un-Manipulated Children? Aversion to Romantic and Sexual Situations? Natural? I’m afraid I’m at a loss for what any of this means.
think back to being 5 years old and how freaked out and scared you would have been if a grown person started talking to things if a sexual nature to you. I remember when I was like 11 or 12, we were living in Queens NY. I was attending a Catholic school, and I had geeky friends whose common interests were the Thriller album and Voltron (yes, I am dating my age). In May we moved to a more wealthy suburb near Princeton NJ, and the kids there were already having sex. I remember the first time a guy referred to a girl he had sex with and made a nasty remark about her private anatomy, I went home that day shaking and afraid to go back to school. I was so scared, I didn’t even tell my parents. I was told by my peers that I simply needed to get over it and get with the program, and I did. I wish I knew then what I know now (yeah right at 11 or 12), but that the problem was not “me” and I told my parents. I hope my example sort of illustrates what Joe is talking about.
Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Pansy Moss says:
That students are on prescription drugs just to make it through school is partially related to sophistication in medical science.
I don’t agree with this either. There are a lot of kids in public schools who are misdiagnosed with ADD and ADHD who simply need a bit of extra attention, but the teacher cannot give it.
With that said, I don’t think the increases in ADD and ADHD is necessarily about the about the ability to diagnose and treat it. finding a good doctor who is willing to take time with a patient and really see what the problem is by looking at what is happening in their life emotionally, what they eat, sleep patterns, and all the symptomology is very rare (just watch Mystery Diagnoses on Discovery Health is you don’t believe me). And don’t expect anything if you are a minority patient on Medicare. It is easy for someone a Mom to go in and say “my kid drives me nuts” and leave with a script for Ritalin (although they seems to have tapered off a bit than 10 years ago). That is not to say these conditions do not exist-they do and the medications have been an absolute miracle for many people. I am not anti-medicine, I just think medicine involves more than a few abstact symptoms and medications, and I give lots of credit to the good doctors who take time with their patients.
Some of the things that may contribute to hyperactivity , IMO are diet. Most American kids eat horribly. Mothers work and don’t cook anymore. There are more convenience foods which mean less fiber and whole grains, mopre processing, less nutrients, more preservatives, more dyes and fillers. Yeah, I know, it is hard with the busy American lifestyle, no denying that. Not for one second, you do what you gotta do. But that still does not change the way what you eat affects your chemistry.
Lifestyle. Boys (who are mostly affected by ADD and ADHD) are creatures made to physical. They need to jump, run, chase after odd creatures in the yard, dig holes and make mud pies. This has changed a lot. Partially due to inside entertainment (TV, video games), but I think more so not everyone lives out in the country, and the world is just not the safe place it was that you can let your kids out at 8 AM and never see them again until 5 PM and trust they are safe. My parents grew up in Harlem and the Bronx and they still managed to have an outside summer life filled with exercise. I also think our lives have become a bit too convenient. Boys don’t have to carry the firewood in any more. Anyway, my point is my son is ADHD, and he does a lot better when that energy can be channeled and burned.
These are just some surface observations of my own.
Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Truth for Youth says:
Earlier comments by those advocating for contraceptive sex ed shows how poor this education is. They are under the false impression that “safe” sex protects them from STIs.
In fact, the most comprehensive study by the National Institutes of Health (released summer 2003) indicates that there is no evidence that condoms protect against the most prevalent STIs in the US, including Human Papilloma Virus (for which a new vaccine has just been approved by the FDA), genital herpes and chlamydia. And of course, the Pill and other hormonal contraceptives provide no protection against any STIs.
Student Teacher and Lauren are greatly misled. Just another indication that contraceptive sex ed is still just as flawed as it was when I got it 20 years ago. No wonder it’s so ineffective!
Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Truth for Youth says:
Earlier comments by those advocating for contraceptive sex ed shows just how poor this education is. They are under the false impression that “safe” sex protects them from STIs.
In fact, the most comprehensive study by the National Institutes of Health (released summer 2003) indicates that there is no evidence that condoms protect against the most prevalent STIs in the US, including Human Papilloma Virus (for which a new vaccine has just been approved by the FDA), genital herpes and chlamydia. And of course, the Pill and other hormonal contraceptives provide no protection against any STIs.
Student Teacher, Lauren and others supporting their viewpoint are greatly misled. Just another indication that contraceptive sex ed is still just as flawed as it was when I got it 10 years ago. No wonder it’s so ineffective!
Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
joe says:
Lucy wrote, “That students are on prescription drugs just to make it through school is partially related to sophistication in medical science.”
I am going to define what you call “sophistication in medical science”.
A drug company plays around with molecules attempting to treat something horrible like cancer. When they do their testing, they find that it does little to the cancer, but effects the tear production in some peoples eyes, then perhaps makes someone elses hair and fingernails grow better. They do more tests, then make up a “sophisticated” name to describe a person who suffers from slow fingernail growth. Then they patetent the thing and wait for FDA approval. Eventually they get it and send this new drug to the masses, only to find out in about twenty years that the side affects are worse than the initial problem.
My favorite example of this is Viagra. Viagra was an accident. The chemists at Pfizer were working on blood pressure medication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viagra
A person can call this sophistication, but I call it garbage.
Joe
Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Pansy Moss says:
In fact, the most comprehensive study by the National Institutes of Health (released summer 2003) indicates that there is no evidence that condoms protect against the most prevalent STIs in the US, including Human Papilloma Virus (for which a new vaccine has just been approved by the FDA), genital herpes and chlamydia. And of course, the Pill and other hormonal contraceptives provide no protection against any STIs.
Nope. The natural flaws in latex are 700x’s the size of the AIDS virus, therefore offering as much protection as a glass of water. Everytime you have a condom distribution campaign, instances of AIDS skyrocket in that population instead of go down, yet people still persist in the condoms/safe sex myth.
They are also not very effective against pregnancy. The efficacy seems to have some merit only because a woman is only fertile a few days out of a month. Women who use condoms during the fertile phase as opposed to abstaining to avoid seem to come up pregnant a lot.
Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Another Annie says:
OK. I’m not even going to address the idea that comprehensive sex ed is instrumental in teaching kids to use condoms PROPERLY, so that they DO NOT fail as often…
Or that if you treated young girls like human beings and not like mere baby incubators and let them have access to Hormonal Birth Control, diaphragms, the sponge, spermicidal gels, or any other number of barrier/hormonal birth control methods, the condom failure rate wouldn’t even matter.
All I’m going to say is that if you’re surprised that Playboy Magazine supports comprehensive sex ed in schools, you need to crawl out from under your rock a little more often. Playboy, in addition to promoting and publishing some of this century’s finest writers and columnists, has long been an advocate for healthy, egalitarian relationships between the sexes. And for them, part of that is teaching men and women alike how to protect themselves, should they choose to have sex–no matter when or with whom.
Comment posted July 16th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Generations for Life » Blog Archive » When Did Playboy Become Respectable? says:
[...] Last month I posted about a demonstration I participated in outside of the Playboy headquarters in downtown Chicago. [...]
Comment posted July 21st, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Generations for Life » Blog Archive » “But They’re Going to Do It Anyway” says:
[...] The adults-only fundraiser was held at — of all places — the Playboy headquarters. You can view the invitation here [PDF]; I blogged about it here. [...]
Comment posted October 13th, 2006 at 5:36 pm