Comments on: SF Chronicle: Obama’s national sex education program

By: violet

violet — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:56:51 +0000

wow, wow, wow — so many great comments, thank you! I’m especially thrilled to see Moira Carmody here! I’m a big, big fan of the work you’re doing! okay, now some parsing:

@ tad – I’m a columnist/reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle whose work is published on the Chron’s official website, which, confusingly is not named/URL’d something obvious like sfchronicle. I am one of several online-only columnists and reporters for the SF Chronicle, and that when I have pieces that fit into the print strategy (like movie coverage for Datebook), I get them in print as well. I have what a lot of columnists/reporters see as an ideal situation at the Chron, in that I am not constrained by the limitations of print, such as length (print columns are typically around 25 inches, about 500 words) or a tech (links! URL citations!) perspective.

@ madmike + LibertyVini – I agree that having the Feds run this could be a disaster (such a great track record with abstinence-only, eh?), but they’re doing it now and it’s doing way, way more harm than good and I think it’s damaging future generations in ways we are only beginning to comprehend.

@ JW – I’m glad you pointed out the title of the column and my blog post here. the front page style of the SFGate has changed recently so that readers no longer see the full title of the subhead I include with my article titles; the subhead supports the statement (or explains) the limited-character title I’m afforded. btw, with the new front page style, invisible editors change my front page title and subhead all on their own, and sometimes mangle it so effectively that their title/sub doesn’t actually say what my column is about, and it looks like a different topic altogether — then I wake up, see the front page and start writing emails going “hey the who the what OMFG change it!” often, it’s fine and they do a good job. as for the title of this blog post, you’re right — I should have also included the subhead to my piece which explains that it’s the groundwork for a structured plan I want/hope/dream Obama would put in motion. but, it’s also cynical, as I know no politician in the Oval Office would ever talk frankly and honestly about sex education. just look at what happened to Dr. Jocelyn Elders.

By: JW

JW — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:20:17 +0000

As far as I know, there is no federal ban on non-abstinence sex ed, which would likely be unconstitutional. The federal government just gives money to abstinence programs. Many states don’t take this money and do their own types of programs.

I’m not sure that the federal government could make any kind of absolute requirements on sex ed curriculum, the best it could do is offer funding for those that meet certain standards. In any case, Congress would have to do this.

To madmike.

One of the jobs laid out in the Constitution is to “tax and spend for the general welfare,” which is where sex ed comes in. Also, Obama a Marxist? You obviously don’t have any idea what Marxism is if you think that.

To VB.

I don’t know if you wrote the article title or if the Chronicle did, but I think its a bit misleading to say its “Obama’s” program when you’re merely advocating that he adopt it.

I do like the hotline idea, though. That seems like it could do a lot of good because anyone could use it, no matter what that state’s sex ed curriculum was.

By: LibertyVini

LibertyVini — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:39:06 +0000

I hate to say this, but anything would be better than what we have now.

Still, the Federal Government can’t do a single thing right, so how about evicting the awful federal programs and returning the issue to the states, the school districts, and the parents and kids?

Even the sex ed we got in Catholic grade school was more useful than the disaster the Feds have inflicted the schools with. And at least with local responsibility for curriculum there is a snowball’s chance that it would be delivered in a way that is if not 100% morally, culturally, and religiously appropriate, at least as neutral as possible.

What’s the rationale for believing Obama or anyone else can address the sexual education needs of 75-odd million kids?

By: madmike

madmike — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:15:45 +0000

The best way to protect kids from poor sex ed classes is… don’t teach them in school. The schools can’t even manage to turn out kids who can speak the language properly. And the Government has no right to decide when and what to teach children about sex. I don’t have any objections to good information on sex being available (I think sites like this one are a great resource) but the public schools will make an absolute mess out of this (just like they have with the rest of what they teach). The Federal Government has very few jobs laid out for it (they’re all listed in the Constitution) I don’t remember sex ed being one of them. BTW, Obama would make a horrifyingly unskilled President who’s policies reek of Marxism.

By: Ki

Ki — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:01:16 +0000

While I’m not impartial (I prefer lower taxes to higher), I’m also nowhere near you in terms of waxing rhapsodic for either candidate or party. Given that, and with as unbiased eye as eye as I can muster, Cindy McCain is actually more attractive, and significantly less polarizing.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:17:06 +0000

Ummm….

DOH!

http://www.realliferealtalk.org

By: Moira

Moira — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:07:59 +0000

Hi Violet – thanks so much for mentioning my work from down here(!) in Australia in your latest article on sex ed. My work is not just about this but about how to encourage young women and men of diverse sexualities how they can have ethical pleasurable and consensual sex of any type. If you or anyone else is itnerested please check out the project website which so not like yours but not bad for an academic! Sexual ethics http://www.sexualethics.org.au – my latest book and the sexual ethics programme will be published in December this year which may help the fight for a more sex positive sexuality and violence prevention approach in the US

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:21:54 +0000

AWESOME post.

(When the HELL do you SLEEP? Then again, I should talk. averaging 4 a night. Jeez.)

An org trying to make a difference:

http://www.realliferealtalk..org

By: Steve Hall

Steve Hall — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:04:03 +0000

Violet Blue for U.S. Secretary of Sex Education! Seriously. It’s sorely needed.

By: tad

tad — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:40:58 +0000

ms. blue, i’m wondering: are you a columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle or a columnist for sfgate.com? if you work for the Chronicle, how come they don’t run your great (and educational) articles in the print version? thanks for the clarification.

By: Sara

Sara — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:56:50 +0000

Oh. My. God.
I wish there was someone as open as you are in my area.
I’m a teacher in Indiana and this is a HOT subject!
Even in my classes teaching abstinence vs. smart/safe sex was a big discussion.
I think that teaching abstinence does no good with kids! And I’ve had third graders using words like “sexy” in reference to people without their knowing it’s meaning! I say it’s time to educate kids before society gets to them and we shouldn’t be afraid to answer their “akward” questions!!
Yay for your article…and maybe Obama is exactly what we need to jet things in the right direction.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:38:23 +0000

btw, this article kicks complete ass. mostly concise, always clear, and directly to the point. you could
expand the “ask kids what they need” well outside of sex-ed as well. you may not follow what they think,
but it gives an excellent insight into what they already know.

but alas, any such program will still be saddled and nonconsensually pony-whipped by standardized testing
for the lowest bar anywhere. all these constitutional constructionists and states’ righters happily ignore
the clause stating that education is reserved for the states.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:16:11 +0000

completely unrelated, but identi.ca is not having the problems twitter is, and it’s
free software and an open service…

By: secondlastwish

secondlastwish — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:57:56 +0000

Amen.

I would venture to say that teachers need some training. Serious. Training. I think it takes some skills to facilitate these discussions without feeling squirmy and weird. Oh! How about actually putting money back into health classes and training teachers who are actually health teachers? So sex ed isn’t just pawned off on coaches and science teachers. And! Condoms and STD testing at school sites.

ok. done.