Next: Sex Texts
Interesting idea here, from the Boston Star:
San Francisco health officials are starting a new program to get sex education advice to young people by sending them text messages.
The city's Department of Public Health began a program this week -- the first of its kind in the United States -- offering automated sex education and health advice to people via their cell phones.
All someone has to do is send a text message with sexinfo in the message to two phone numbers set up within the health department.
The text message generates an automatic reply, prompting people to choose from a variety of topic options ranging from peer pressure to broken condoms.
The text conversation usually ends with solutions, including a phone number to call and location and hours of area health clinics.
A lot of teenagers don't go to clinics, they're afraid to ask questions, said 22-year-old Michelle Irving, a peer educator with the city health department.
She said this gives people, especially within the programs 12-to-24 target age range, a more private option for seeking help or advice.
The program, modeled after one in London, will cost San Francisco about $2,500 a month to run. Text-mailing used to teach sex health
posted by JimK at 10:14 AM
29 Comments:
So kids as young as twelve can receive text messages with sexual information without their parents' consent from the San Francisco health department? I think this might give some parents pause for consideration.
Yes, Anon, good point, we don't want medical experts giving young people facts -- they should probably just wait and get the information from the Internet.
PB
I figure kids get their information from TV- more than 80% of American homes have cable/satellite TV. Why give them real facts when they can watch garbage TV? Not that free channels are good either.
I pat myself on the back -we have not had cable for 10 years now.
Andrea
I was thinking about it the other day and I came to the conclusion that this website has a problem with false advertising. Shouldn't this place be called "Teach the Opinions" or even "Teach the Theories"?
Student from Va
Or if you have such problems with this webiste...not read it...
No one is tying you to this site.
Anon, don't confuse two things. This is a web site where people can express opinions. We relay some facts, for instance, in this post I relayed a new kind of way of using text-messaging. But we also discuss a lot of stuff, and exchange opinions -- the site, at least the blog part of it, is people discussing issues.
The issue we focus on, though, has to do with what is to be taught in certain health classes. A curriculum had been planned, which presented a number of well-established facts about sexuality, including some that had not been included in previous classes. Some people, though, wanted the sex-ed curriculum to reflect their anti-gay and anti-safe-sex attitudes. We organized to make sure that the school district stayed firm in their commitment to teaching the facts in health classes.
Two things.
JimK
Problem is, Jim, this student can see, as can anyone, that, right on your mission statement, you advocate teaching two positions that have clearly not achieved the status of "fact". TTF members advocate teaching similar positions not specifically mentioned in your mission statement. Additionally, like the discredited Fishback revisions, you advocate selectively teaching facts which bolster your point of view while ignoring relevant facts needed by students to make wise decisions.
I presume Student from VA is a student because he or she enjoys learning. If so, Student from VA should know that when the CRC brought suit to stop the MCPS health education curriculum from being updated, it publicly supported the existing MCPS health education curriculum which assumes there is only one sexual orientation.
Students cannot make wise decisions about their health when they have been ignored and/or given no information in health class.
Now the suers want religious views about various aspects of sexuality brought into the classroom and seek to exclude information from the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and other mainstream medical and mental health organizations.
Christine
He probably does enjoy learning. From history, he would learn that during the great American experiment with valueless sex ed in the 70s and 80s, we got herpes, AIDS and an explosion of teen pregnancy. In the 90s and 21st century, he will find an improved situation with the introduction of abstinence programs. Could it all be just a coincidence?
Oh Wyatt more comprehensive sex eds would do that and have all the while making sure to note importantly the 100% method would be abstinence. Abstinence programs have been there.
We got (as you said) herpes, AIDS and an explosion of teen pregnancy and that would be in not promoting condom use enough(how to use properly), etc. and for people even teenagers not using them consistently for those not doing the abstinence route. That would also include those giving oral sex, anal sex, etc. while saying they were practicing abstinence.
Just because kids hear about sex ed, etc. does not mean they will run out and have sex.
It means if they do and some will... they will know how to protect themselves so we do not have "herpes, AIDS and an explosion of teen pregnancy."
freebird
"more comprehensive sex eds would do that and have all the while making sure to note importantly the 100% method would be abstinence. Abstinence programs have been there."
Comprehensive sex ed was ubiquitous in the 70s and 80s.
"We got (as you said) herpes, AIDS and an explosion of teen pregnancy and that would be in not promoting condom use enough(how to use properly), etc."
This is a truly sad case of living in denial. Reality is out there. There were condom instruction videos then. Indeed, they've been around so long that TTF complains the existing one looks outdated. What was missing was moral guidance. Let's not head the wrong way.
"and for people even teenagers not using them consistently for those not doing the abstinence route. That would also include those giving oral sex, anal sex, etc. while saying they were practicing abstinence."
Just because kids hear about sex ed, etc. does not mean they will run out and have sex."
Well, they're guaranteed to hear about it. That's not the issue. The issue is the message society sends about sexual morality. If they're sent the message that society is indifferent to whether they engage in promiscuity, they'll be more likely to engage in dangerous behavior.
"It means if they do and some will... they will know how to protect themselves so we do not have "herpes, AIDS and an explosion of teen pregnancy.""
It didn't work until abstinence became part of the mix. Knowledge without guidance is worthless.
"freebird"
thanks, KR
"That would also include those giving oral sex, anal sex, etc. while saying they were practicing abstinence"
You know this is interesting. The current propaganda from the anti-family forces is that abstinence programs encourage oral and anal sex. I don't know how overblown it is but if we accept it as true, it would be an indication that abstinence teachers are causing teens to alter their behavior. There is little evidence of this kind of effect from comp sex ed. Presumably, altering the ab programs to stress that these behavior have the same risks as ordinary intercourse might pay significant dividends.
Anon..teaching "just abstinence" is not correct. Kids and adults do other things in the sexual genre just so they can say they are abstinent and meet whatever religious needs are there.
But we all know and it has been shown that not everyone practices abstinence just because they say they do.
freebird
anon said, If they're sent the message that society is indifferent to whether they engage in promiscuity, they'll be more likely to engage in dangerous behavior.
----
A full comprehensive sex ed is a responsible thing to do. Even the majority of kids in MCPS say so especially those that were in the former pilots of old proposed. Now let's see anon how many times was abstinence noted as 100% effective both in curriculum and in the condom video?
"But we all know and it has been shown that not everyone practices abstinence just because they say they do."
Not everyone uses condoms just because the public school tells them to. It's not clear how many change their behavior because they've taken comp sex ed but it's likely less than 12%.
anon said, "Not everyone uses condoms just because the public school tells them to"
_________
Not everyone practices abstinence just because a public school tells them to."
freebird
yes, but more will than use condoms
sure wyatt....sure...
I thought it would be a good idea to voice my opinion before it was shoved in my mouth for me.
I am a college student who lives in Virginia. Yes, I like learning. Someone made the comment that part of learning is being exposed to all sides of a story, I totally agree. One thing that annoys me though, is the FACT that the "homosexual attraction is "natural"' theory is taught as FACT in public schools. Why is the other side taught as well? Has anyone in this community heard of Dr Robert Spitzer? Read up on him and then continue spouting half thought out crap in the public forum and then I will know that you are truly insane.
Student from VA
Oh my you are new to this blog...yes we know about Spitzer.
http://tinyurl.com/nthzj
http://www.hatecrime.org/exgay.html
http://tinyurl.com/pcpdv
freebird
Student, we are very familiar with Spitzer's work. most of us have the book of research on ex-gays, and all of us have read Spitzer and most of the studies that came after. The idea that some carefully selected and highly motivated people in phone interviews could convince Spitzer (with no followup) that they had changed their sexual orientation may mean that they really did -- and it doesn't matter if they did, that doesn't hurt anything, good for them -- or it may mean that they themselves were convinced of something that might not turn out to be true.
The ex-gay "movement" is so riddled with lies and scandal that there is not much optimism in believing any of them. Maybe somebody changed their sexual orientation, maybe somebody thought they were gay and they weren't, maybe somebody who was bi learned to emphasize the straight part ... If they were really straight, I believe they would call themselves "straight," not ex-something-or-other. Like, do out-of-the-closet gay guys call themselves 'ex-straight?" Of course not.
If sexual orientation changes, it happens very rarely. Maybe it does, that's nothing I would object to -- it's none of my business. The ugly part is people trying to tell others that they should be like them. It's ok to be gay, and if you're not really, that's ok, too.
JimK
"highly motivated people"
Problem is, there are people all over the country who fell into this lifestyle and recovered but anti-family forces dismiss them all because they are, by definition, motivated. I met a couple of them recently.
TTF only deems you credible if you're apathetic (or agree with them.)
Student in VA said Has anyone in this community heard of Dr. Robert Spitzer?
Anon -- Please explain to Student the fact that sometimes "studies contradict" and that's why it's wrong to rely on only a single study to determine anything and important to fund research so that data can be amassed and valid conclusions drawn.
Student might be interested to learn what the CDC has to say about some of the difficulties of properly designing research studies about human sexuality (in this specific case, about condom effectiveness):
Because these studies involve private behaviors that investigators cannot observe directly, it is difficult to determine accurately whether an individual is a condom user or whether condoms are used consistently and correctly. Likewise, it can be difficult to determine the level of exposure to STDs among study participants. These problems are often compounded in studies that employ a "retrospective” design, e.g., studies that measure behaviors and risks in the past.
The Spitzer study (you can purchase a copy of it here) is a retrospective design with no direct observations of the behavior being studied.
Further, the pool of subjects for Spitzer's study was very unusual and he speaks about it at length in his paper. It took 16 months to find the 200 subjects he interviewed. Here's the breakdown of the 143 males and 57 females:
95% were Caucasian
76% were college graduates
84% were American
16% were European
81% were Christian
8% were Catholic
7% were Mormon
3% were Jewish
93% "reported that religion was 'extremely' or 'very' important in their lives"
19% "were mental health professionals or directors of ex-gay ministries"
78% "had publicly spoken in favor or efforts to change homosexual orientation, often at their church"
In no way does this represent a random sample of the gay population. The 93% who say religion is very or extremely important in their lives along with the 19% who said they were mental health professionals or directors of ex-gay ministries and the 78% who had spoken publicly in favor of reparative therapy are the "highly motivated" subjects Spitzer discussed.
In the Discussion section, Spitzer admits to these and other limitations of his study, and he calls for more research to provide answers this study could not:
"Ideally, the research interviewer in a study is blind to the research hypothesis and has no vested interest in the results. Because the author conducted the interviews, this was not the case in this study."
"The study relied exclusively on self-report...[and]...would have greatly benefited by also using objective measures of sexual orientation, such as penile or vaginal photoplethysmography."
"Given the fallibility of memory for past events, it is impossible to be sure how accurate individuals were in answering questions about how they felt during the year before starting the therapy, which on average was about 12 years before the interview. Using a prospective design, in which participants were evaluated before entering therapy and then many years later, would provide much more information than the design that was used."
"Are the participants' self-reports of change, by-and-large, credible or are they biased because of self-deception, exaggeration, or even lying? This critical issue deserves careful examination in light of the participants' and their spouses' high motivation to provide data supporting the valued off efforts to change sexual orientation."
Christine
Christine
You're quite right to point out the difficulty of doing studies based on any self-reported behavior. Unfortunately, this only bothers you if the study doesn't support the gay affirmation.
One problem you have is that sample size and selection doesn't really matter in this instance because your side simply says same-sex preference is ALWAYS innate and NO ONE ever overcomes it. Spitzer is significant not for producing rates but for the identification of people who say they have overcome irrational same-sex desire.
Straw Man
Straw, first of all, please point out where any TTF member has used the word "never" in this context. A single contrary case defeats the "never" argument. A few people were able to convince Spitzer that they had changed their sexual orientation. OK, it is possible for left-handed people to learn to favor their right hands. Nobody says you can never become right-handed, but ... is that really what that means?
Spitzer knew his methodology was weak, but it suited his very limited goal of seeing if anybody, ever, changes. My main complaint would be no follow-up. One of our gay commentors here has said, "If you asked me at certain times of my life, I would have told you I was ex-gay, and I would have believed it." You can't just change, proving that "change is possible," and then change back again. But that is the typical case.
JimK
"Straw, first of all, please point out where any TTF member has used the word "never" in this context."
Isn't that what you guys mean when you say there is no such thing as an ex-gay?
There is no doubt that there are people walking around who call themselves "ex-gays." At leasts three that I know of. We doubt whether they are really "ex" anythings, but I don't think anybody would assert that there was "never" anything, or that anything was impossible.
Personally, I don't see why a left-handed person couldn't learn to use their right hand. I don't see it as something worthwhile, certainly not something better than using your preferred hand.
But the word "never" -- I think that's yours.
JimK
"fell into this lifestyle" Oh, puhleeze. Such a typical right wing thing to say. I will repeat that the "lifestyle" you speak of consists for many people of getting up, feeding the kids, getting them to school, going to work, feeding the kids, getting them to do homework and go to bed and then doing household chores before going to bed- and repeating the next day or doing this without the kids part included. That is as much the gay lifestyle as the straight one.
Anon said:
"The current propaganda from the anti-family forces is that abstinence programs encourage oral and anal sex."
It is really a breathtaking example of arrogance on your part to refer to those of us whose perspective is not compatable with your own as "anti-family". Speaking for myself, I have a BS in Family Studies and a postgraduate degree that permits me to practice as a licensed professional dealing with families and their successes and problems each and every workday. I am a parent, as are most of us who keep up with this blog, and adore my family. I am not anti-family, and I don't personally know anyone who is--certainly not our moderator on this site. If you could try to contain your offensive rhetoric, you might communicate more effectively.
thanks,
elinor
Post a Comment
<< Home