Lets announce your virginity to the whole school.

[Ivycoveredtower]

Please tell me you went to a private school. Cause if that was a public school it would seem to be not only awful, but a huge waste of tax money.

Basically we were shown pictures of all the horrible STD's you could get if you had sex. It was a bit better if you took the family class. You know that one where you have to take a fake baby home. but that was an elective and not many people took it.

[Firiel]

Can I ask, those who were (or whose children are) educated in abstinence only sex ed, are you actually taught anything or is it just "there's this thing called sex but don't do it"? I am wondering if, for example, you are taught about how fertility works. I can see that learning about it might encourage natural planning which wouldn't fit with abstinence only but it's also useful knowledge when you want to conceive.

Do you mean did we learn the basic biology of sexual reproduction? Well, yeah... of course. We learned that sperm meets egg and implants in uterine wall and that a period was the shedding of the uterine lining on months where there was no pregnancy.

We didn't learn the more intricate details of fertility like when ovulation was in comparison to your period or how long an egg was viable after ovulation or anything like that, though. I'm not sure that level of detail is reached even in most non-abstinence only programs here in the US.

Mostly what we learned was that sex makes you an unsticky piece of tape, and that if you sleep with someone, you are sleeping with EVERYONE they've ever slept with. Oh, and condoms don't work.

[Toothfairy]

Basically we were shown pictures of all the horrible STD's you could get if you had sex. It was a bit better if you took the family class. You know that one where you have to take a fake baby home. but that was an elective and not many people took it.

Not only that, but telling stories of how heartbroken people were that they didn't wait or how nobody wants them anymore. Or one story where the wife finds out her husband isn't a virgin and leaves him. Nobody wants gum that has no flavor. They want a fresh stick. It's more scaring and making kids feel bad and guilty into not having sex and saving it for marriage.

[antwan]

Virginity is not a group. And Christians have more support then anyone else.

It's not about whether virginity is a "group". It's about being able to express one's preference and/or orientation. If groups can hang posters advertising meetings that are based on sexual orientation, than an individual should be equally permitted to wear a t-shirt announcing her belief in sexual abstinence before marriage. One right does not get to trump the other (well, except for that it clearly DOES, which is ridiculously slanted; I beg to differ that Christians have "so much support." They're constantly under attack for non-conformance to the views of others.)

[louisa05]

It's not about whether virginity is a "group". It's about being able to express one's preference and/or orientation. If groups can hang posters advertising meetings that are based on sexual orientation, than an individual should be equally permitted to wear a t-shirt announcing her belief in sexual abstinence before marriage. One right does not get to trump the other (well, except for that it clearly DOES, which is ridiculously slanted; I beg to differ that Christians have "so much support." They're constantly under attack for non-conformance to the views of others.)

There is a difference between talking about sexual preference and talking about sexual activity. A gay pride t-shirt is about sexual preference. A virginity t-shirt is about sexual activity because virginity is a state of being that may change, whereas one's sexual preference is not. All of us were virgins at some point and some choose to remain so. Not likewise for being gay or straight.

A shirt that says "I'm Straight" is about sexual preference. A shirt that says "I gave my boyfriend a blow job this morning" is about sexual activity. See how that works? And if the virginity t-shirt is okay with you, then is the blow job t-shirt okay as well?

[Firiel]

There is a difference between talking about sexual preference and talking about sexual activity. A gay pride t-shirt is about sexual preference. A virginity t-shirt is about sexual activity because virginity is a state of being that may change, whereas one's sexual preference is not. All of us were virgins at some point and some choose to remain so. Not likewise for being gay or straight.

A shirt that says "I'm Straight" is about sexual preference. A shirt that says "I gave my boyfriend a blow job this morning" is about sexual activity. See how that works? And if the virginity t-shirt is okay with you, then is the blow job t-shirt okay as well?

Well, shoot. I don't really know which side of the fence I'm on with this issue with the t-shirt.

But I think a more apt comparison of t-shirts would be "Virginity Rocks" = "I <3 Sex"

The "I gave my boyfriend a blow job this morning" is quite explicit and specific, whereas both the examples above are not explicit and more vague.

*runs away from debate*

[louisa05]

Well, shoot. I don't really know which side of the fence I'm on with this issue with the t-shirt.

But I think a more apt comparison of t-shirts would be "Virginity Rocks" = "I <3 Sex"

The "I gave my boyfriend a blow job this morning" is quite explicit and specific, whereas both the examples above are not explicit and more vague.

*runs away from debate*

I was intentionally being hyperbolic to make the point (the difference between preference/activity) clear.

[Firiel]

I was intentionally being hyperbolic to make the point (the difference between preference/activity) clear.

Being hyperbolic to the point of false analogy doesn't do anyone any good.

FWIW, I think there is a good chance that in most schools, someone would be sent home for an "I <3 Sex" shirt.

And I don't think Christians would be doing the persecution tango if the shirt said, "I don't let my boyfriend put his penis in my vagina!" even though I guess it's exactly the same thing as "Virginity Rocks!"

[lawfulevil]

It's very much never mentioned. Actually, I took two years of high school biology in TX and still didn't get my first halfway-decent explanation (in-school, I knew some of this independently) until I took science at the CC here in California. Even the truth about meiosis was just too saucy, I guess. Of course diploid vs haploid came up in TX, but literally this semester in Anthro Lab was the FIRST TIME I ever HEARD of polar bodies.

Similarly, nothing in my HS biology curriculum ever even mentioned intersex conditions, luteal phase defects, fibroids, spermatogenesis problems, androgen insensitivity, or any of dozens of other "exceptions" (wouldn't Lori be thrilled).

They sure felt no shame about pushing the rhythm method, I'm sorry, "fertility awareness", without mentioning that it's intensely personal and inexact.

[louisa05]

It's very much never mentioned. Actually, I took two years of high school biology in TX and still didn't get my first halfway-decent explanation (in-school, I knew some of this independently) until I took science at the CC here in California. Even the truth about meiosis was just too saucy, I guess. Of course diploid vs haploid came up in TX, but literally this semester in Anthro Lab was the FIRST TIME I ever HEARD of polar bodies.

Similarly, nothing in my HS biology curriculum ever even mentioned intersex conditions, luteal phase defects, fibroids, spermatogenesis problems, androgen insensitivity, or any of dozens of other "exceptions" (wouldn't Lori be thrilled).

They sure felt no shame about pushing the rhythm method, I'm sorry, "fertility awareness", without mentioning that it's intensely personal and inexact.

Speaking as someone who taught high school for 16 years, not sciences granted, how much of what is left out in biology a matter of time? Everything just doesn't fit in the curriculum. Biology also does not typically cover every other condition, disease, genetic difference, in every other area, either. My cousin has cystic fibrosis. That wasn't covered as an exception in lung function when we were taught about the respiratory system in tenth grade biology. No one was trying to hide it from us, there just isn't time. Much like my area where people turn what we don't teach in history class into entire books to call us liars--we really just didn't have time. When you have 18 weeks, someone has to pick and choose what is going to be covered.

[lawfulevil]

I suspect some bias in the picking and choosing, given that it was Texas. Our "sex education" took up a lot of time (6 weeks of Health, which we had to take in both middle and high school) and they didn't do much but hand out menstrual sanitary products and push chastity for Jesus.

[Mama Mia]

I suspect some bias in the picking and choosing, given that it was Texas. Our "sex education" took up a lot of time (6 weeks of Health, which we had to take in both middle and high school) and they didn't do much but hand out menstrual sanitary products and push chastity for Jesus.

They didn't mention religion when they presented the abstinence education though, right? :shock:

[Mama Mia]

It's very much never mentioned. Actually, I took two years of high school biology in TX and still didn't get my first halfway-decent explanation (in-school, I knew some of this independently) until I took science at the CC here in California. Even the truth about meiosis was just too saucy, I guess. Of course diploid vs haploid came up in TX, but literally this semester in Anthro Lab was the FIRST TIME I ever HEARD of polar bodies.

Similarly, nothing in my HS biology curriculum ever even mentioned intersex conditions, luteal phase defects, fibroids, spermatogenesis problems, androgen insensitivity, or any of dozens of other "exceptions" (wouldn't Lori be thrilled).

They sure felt no shame about pushing the rhythm method, I'm sorry, "fertility awareness", without mentioning that it's intensely personal and inexact.

I admit it's been a million years since I was in school, but I did have comprehensive sex ed, as well as human sexuality in college -- and I still had to look up several of those terms just now. I can understand that covering something's like intersex conditions would be important -- but fibroids? I mean they really can't be expected to cover everything in what is likely less than a full semester course.

Eta: just re-read your post and saw you were referring to high school biology, not sex ed in particular. I don't know if generally all these things would be covered?

[louisa05]

I suspect some bias in the picking and choosing, given that it was Texas. Our "sex education" took up a lot of time (6 weeks of Health, which we had to take in both middle and high school) and they didn't do much but hand out menstrual sanitary products and push chastity for Jesus.

Your post previous to this specifically said biology class. That is a whole different matter than a sex ed unit in health class.

[DGayle]

It's not about whether virginity is a "group". It's about being able to express one's preference and/or orientation. If groups can hang posters advertising meetings that are based on sexual orientation, than an individual should be equally permitted to wear a t-shirt announcing her belief in sexual abstinence before marriage. One right does not get to trump the other (well, except for that it clearly DOES, which is ridiculously slanted; I beg to differ that Christians have "so much support." They're constantly under attack for non-conformance to the views of others.)

Sexual orientation and sexual status are not fucking comparable!!!!

You don't choose whether you're gay or straight. Support meetings for gay kids is because gay kids are often teased and harassed for something they can never choose! Our federal laws don't even protect them!! This is NOT a goddamned preference!! You're gay or you're straight. If you can choose your preference, tell me when you decided you prefer the opposite set. You can't, because you didn't choose. LGBT people are an oppressed minority. Kids and teens KILL themselves at an alarmingly high rate because of oppression and harassment. Forcing LGBT kids to hide and revoking support for them will do nothing more than increase the number of kids who kill themselves because they feel alone and ashamed.

Unless you're raped, you can CHOOSE whether or not to be a virgin!! Christianity is NOT an oppressed minority. Christians are the ruling majority. No, oppression does NOT mean boo hoo, other people don't have to follow your religion just because gay people can get married. How often do Christian kids kill themselves because they're oppressed and harassed for being Christian? No one's saying take away the right of Christian kids to organize prayer at the flagpole events even though Christian kids have church and youth groups.

Gay kids don't have weekly get-togethers for support. For many gay kids, their only support might be at school, and taking away that support is deadly. I am appalled that anyone can even suggest hiding gay kids and revoking any sort of support, again, FOR SOMETHING THEY CAN NOT CHOOSE, just because a school has a rule against sexual activity on a shirt. They are not. The same. Fucking. Thing.

Christians are "under attack" because of how many people try to force Christian views on the world, including not only trying to shame people who aren't doing what they'd do, but also attempting to pass laws forcing the rest of us into compliance, including banning gay marriage. Show me any examples of gay people trying to ban the practice of Christianity. I can show you many examples of Christians trying to ban the practice of two same-sex people getting married.

Equating support for gay people with oh that poor girl who can't wear a shirt announcing whether or not she's had sex is a straw man argument, at best, and incredible narrow-minded and bigoted, at worst.

[Ivycoveredtower]

Sexual orientation and sexual status are not fucking comparable!!!!

You don't choose whether you're gay or straight. Support meetings for gay kids is because gay kids are often teased and harassed for something they can never choose! Our federal laws don't even protect them!! This is NOT a goddamned preference!! You're gay or you're straight. If you can choose your preference, tell me when you decided you prefer the opposite set. You can't, because you didn't choose. LGBT people are an oppressed minority. Kids and teens KILL themselves at an alarmingly high rate because of oppression and harassment. Forcing LGBT kids to hide and revoking support for them will do nothing more than increase the number of kids who kill themselves because they feel alone and ashamed.

Unless you're raped, you can CHOOSE whether or not to be a virgin!! Christianity is NOT an oppressed minority. Christians are the ruling majority. No, oppression does NOT mean boo hoo, other people don't have to follow your religion just because gay people can get married. How often do Christian kids kill themselves because they're oppressed and harassed for being Christian? No one's saying take away the right of Christian kids to organize prayer at the flagpole events even though Christian kids have church and youth groups.

Gay kids don't have weekly get-togethers for support. For many gay kids, their only support might be at school, and taking away that support is deadly. I am appalled that anyone can even suggest hiding gay kids and revoking any sort of support, again, FOR SOMETHING THEY CAN NOT CHOOSE, just because a school has a rule against sexual activity on a shirt. They are not. The same. Fucking. Thing.

Christians are "under attack" because of how many people try to force Christian views on the world, including not only trying to shame people who aren't doing what they'd do, but also attempting to pass laws forcing the rest of us into compliance, including banning gay marriage. Show me any examples of gay people trying to ban the practice of Christianity. I can show you many examples of Christians trying to ban the practice of two same-sex people getting married.

Equating support for gay people with oh that poor girl who can't wear a shirt announcing whether or not she's had sex is a straw man argument, at best, and incredible narrow-minded and bigoted, at worst.

Thank you I tried to say something like that farther up the chain but It wasn't as eloquent or as thought out as yours so thank you for saying what I wasn't able to express in my own post.

[lawfulevil]

Your post previous to this specifically said biology class. That is a whole different matter than a sex ed unit in health class.

I suppose I should have said up to and including. I guess my beef with biology class specifically is this: we spent a ton of time on dissections, which were gross, messy (look, we weren't good at scalpels), and time-consuming. Then we didn't discuss anything we found that wasn't expected, so what was the point of dissecting an actual animal? Was it the throwing up in the classroom trash can? Because I think that's usually called hazing.

Times I've even needed to dissect anything as an adult: 0, because I didn't major in a biological science and I'm not a serial killer. Times it would have been nice to have had some information about my OWN BODY: Lots, because I have to live here. So sure, there's limited time... but it's entirely debatable that our traditional curriculum is using that time well.

The thing is, I didn't throw out those terms just to be a difficult bitch. I listed those as examples because all of those things would have been (for me or for a friend) SUPER helpful to know! Even if just that they EXISTED. I didn't find out WHY you need to get Pap smears until I'd been sexually active for years. Which still turned out fine for ME, but not so well for a friend, who is currently dying from the metastization of preventable, HPV-related cancer.

Please recognize that I'm not blaming my biology or health teachers. My city had a very, very tight curriculum overseen by total whackjobs. My individual teachers had very little discretion. They probably would have been fired if they'd brought any of this up. I am, however, incredibly angry at the administration, and I think rightfully so.

[lawfulevil]

They didn't mention religion when they presented the abstinence education though, right? :shock:

They said chastity, not abstinence, but honestly it was 13 and 15 years ago and Jesus was mentioned all the time in class. I really can't remember if they specifically said Jesus or if it was just strongly implied.

[lawfulevil]

I've taken further arguments to my own thread, since it's getting off-topic, but I feel I still have valid objections.

[alba]

The problem I have with them not allowing the t-shirt is that the reason they give is that it might provoke discussion -- God Forbid young people have actual discussions !

Yeah, this. I think the t-shirt is offensive and crass, but what kind of school objects to something on the grounds that it 'opens up too many doors for conversations'?

I had two kilts that lasted me four years of high school. They were washed once a week or every other week and then hung to dry. They still looked good at the end of four years. But these were high quality and fairly expensive. I don't know anyone who had to buy kilts every year unless theirs didn't fit anymore.

I had two kilts over the six years I wore a uniform (not at the same time; I grew out of one and got another), as well as some trousers. Our uniform actually included boxers/bloomers to go under the kilt, so they didn't need washed that often. I LOVED having a uniform; it made getting dressed and doing laundry so much simpler and my family spent less money on clothes because we only need a few non-school outfits, and had fewer outfits for school than we would have done otherwise.

[GolightlyGrrl]

Someone needs to make a "God could give a shit about your hymen"

Lord,somebody please make this happen!!! Countless snarky FJ-ers are counting on you!!!

Self-righteous fundies need to simmer down when it comes to their "fresh in the crate" genitals. Damn, they obsess more over sex than horny teen boys at a porn convention.

[Mama Mia]

They said chastity, not abstinence, but honestly it was 13 and 15 years ago and Jesus was mentioned all the time in class. I really can't remember if they specifically said Jesus or if it was just strongly implied.

I really can't blame you for not remembering, but it's a pretty important distinction when you're talking about possibly including religious indoctrination in public schools in the U.S. :)

[oompa2129]

Out here in India, all our schools have uniforms. Some schools allow free dress on birthdays but only till primary school. It is usually a skirt and blouse or a pinafore with a blouse for girls and shorts and shirts for boys till middle school, then trousers and shirts. Some schools have sarees or salwar kameez for girls as uniform, though mostly these are schools in rural or poor areas. My school was one of the best private schools in a major city but we still had salwar kameez as our uniform for the last two years of school.

For days we had gym we had to wear a white skirt and blouse. All the cool girls chose to wear the skirt combo most of the time hardly ever wearing the salwar kameez, since it was not considered trendy besides, it was made of a polyester blend which was really sad to say the least. Despite all this, in a school which consisted of kids from really rich to very modest families, it was hard to distinguish who was well off or not.