The good news has added a spring to my step. Finally, finally, some politicians get it -- that education on sex doesn't make students have sex, it helps the ones who are going to to protect themselves.

Well, go, Janet!! Finally some sensible and thoughtful behavior regarding teen sexual health. Can we clone her?

Well, go, Janet!! Finally some sensible and thoughtful behavior regarding teen sexual health. Can we clone her?

BTW, she's backing Obama!!

let me just say that the 9th circuit is one of the most liberal courts in the nation, so something should be said for it's ruling. I don't like it, but it is definitely not the first appeals court to uphold choose life license plates. Furthermore, if pro-choice people would like pro-choice license plates in their states, then they should mobilize and get them. The antis are not being given some special pass to establish these lisense plates. There are plenty of pro-choice legislators in the states that would be willing to sponsor legislation to make pro-choice license plates. And in some states, it isn't even necessary to go through the legislature. I just think that if we don't like these license plates, then we should come together and do something about it.

Every state that turns down abstinence-only education is awesome news in my book. I find it sad, though, that she had to frame it like this:

"While we all support abstinence-only and don't believe, in particular, that teenagers should be engaged in sexual relationships of that sort, the fact of the matter is that some do"

So they're against ONLY abstinence-only education, but they think abstinence-only philosophy for teenagers is still the best? Maybe it's good to encourage younger teens to postpone being sexually active in relationships, but it seems like a blanket objection to teen sexuality shuts down a lot of potentially life-enhancing conversations!

I guess, politically, she can't come out in favor of truly, truly integrated and comprehensive sexuality education . . . but I wish I saw more evidence that we were headed in that direction.

I wonder if it would be useful to reframe the debate a little, asking abstinence-only proponents when an appropriate time would be to educate people about sex. Because while I think the core religious fundamentalist crowd would scream "never!", I bet there's a mushy middle out there to be reached. It's easy to get freaked out about 13 year olds having sex (I admit, it freaks me out), but I think a lot of parents out there who have an immediate knee-jerk abstinence-only response don't really want their kids to go into adulthood with misinformation.

For chrissakes, it's like waiting till someone's 15 to tell them to look both ways before crossing the street.

"For chrissakes, it's like waiting till someone's 15 to tell them to look both ways before crossing the street."

YES! That's beautiful.

And can somebody please make a poster or a bumper sticker or a tshirt that says "Choose Choice"? I mean, that's just too good to pass up...

"For chrissakes, it's like waiting till someone's 15 to tell them to look both ways before crossing the street."

YES! That's beautiful.

And can somebody please make a poster or a bumper sticker or a tshirt that says "Choose Choice"? I mean, that's just too good to pass up...

"For chrissakes, it's like waiting till someone's 15 to tell them to look both ways before crossing the street."

YES! That's beautiful.

And can somebody please make a poster or a bumper sticker or a tshirt that says "Choose Choice"? I mean, that's just too good to pass up...

Go Janet! That's my governor! That's the second great move she's made this month. While I also would have preferred she didn't frame it the way she did, such is the sad reality of politics in the Arizona political climate. It's kind of a miracle there's a Democratic, woman governor, period.

Go Janet! That's my governor! That's the second great move she's made this month. While I also would have preferred she didn't frame it the way she did, such is the sad reality of politics in the Arizona political climate. It's kind of a miracle there's a Democratic, woman governor, period.

Does the "choose life" crowd realize that sometimes choosing life requires getting an abortion?

If a woman has [life-threatening] difficulty in childbirth, the embryo within her must be dismembered limb by limb [if necessary], because her life [hayyeha] takes precedence over its life [yayyav]. - Mishna, Oholot 7,6

I was at the Planned Parenthood Roe vs. Wade Anniversary Luncheon where Janet announced this (I was the first to jump out of my seat for a standing ovation). She stressed that she believes in abstinence as the best way to prevent teen pregnancy and STDs -- which is true! Abstinence is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections for people of all ages! But thank goodness that she acknowledges that not all Arizona teens practice abstinence, and if we give them the information that they need to make smart and safer decisions then they will. AZ is a very red state, and I'm proud to have a Democratic governor who can see past any personal beliefs and acknowledge that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Go Janet!!!

I was at the Planned Parenthood Roe vs. Wade Anniversary Luncheon where Janet announced this (I was the first to jump out of my seat for a standing ovation). She stressed that she believes in abstinence as the best way to prevent teen pregnancy and STDs -- which is true! Abstinence is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections for people of all ages! But thank goodness that she acknowledges that not all Arizona teens practice abstinence, and if we give them the information that they need to make smart and safer decisions then they will. AZ is a very red state, and I'm proud to have a Democratic governor who can see past any personal beliefs and acknowledge that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Go Janet!!!

Hopefully the Choose Life license plates will just be taken as unwitting Trainspotting tributes.

In Florida, I'm seeing the "choose life" license plates EVERYWHERE. And everytime I see one, I want to throw up..

We also have a billboard around my area that says "Abortion kills babies!" and then in huge red letters "CHOOSE LIFE!"

Everytime I see that, I want to cry. I need to move.

Ya know, if "Choose Life" weren't so obviously code for "Don't allow women to have abortions", I'd have no problem with it. The key word in there is 'choose', after all. If the pro-lifers were actually saying, "Yes, we support your right to choose, we just wish you'd choose not to have that abortion, and here, we'll help", they'd be pretty righteous. Sadly, no, though.

Ya know, if "Choose Life" weren't so obviously code for "Don't allow women to have abortions", I'd have no problem with it. The key word in there is 'choose', after all. If the pro-lifers were actually saying, "Yes, we support your right to choose, we just wish you'd choose not to have that abortion, and here, we'll help", they'd be pretty righteous. Sadly, no, though.

I heart Janet so much. She is not as liberal as I would like, but no one who is as liberal as I would like has a chance of getting elected here.

I ttly crush on her awesomeness and sensibleness though.

I heart Janet so much. She is not as liberal as I would like, but no one who is as liberal as I would like has a chance of getting elected here.

I ttly crush on her awesomeness and sensibleness though.

Ya know, if "Choose Life" weren't so obviously code for "Don't allow women to have abortions", I'd have no problem with it. The key word in there is 'choose', after all. If the pro-lifers were actually saying, "Yes, we support your right to choose, we just wish you'd choose not to have that abortion, and here, we'll help", they'd be pretty righteous. Sadly, no, though.

"Maybe it's good to encourage younger teens to postpone being sexually active in relationships, but it seems like a blanket objection to teen sexuality"

OTOH, is a blanket objection to teen sexuality the only alternative to not thinking teens should have sex? One can accept some people in a group doing X without saying that group should do X, after all.

Meanwhile, neither "teens shouldn't have sex" nor "teens should have sex" are good enough.

For example, "teens shouldn't have sex" could leave a couple of married 19-year-olds feeling very insulted. For another example, "teens should have sex" could leave a dateless 19-year-old feeling very entitled to sex...

DAS said: ...If a woman has [life-threatening] difficulty in childbirth...Mishna, Oholot 7,6

Wow, I had no idea. I've seen people state that their faith sanctions abortion in some circumstances, but never really knew what that was about or seen a reference to a text. Thanks for the micro-education, DAS.

What I don't understand is WHY pro-choice non-profit organizations (ahem, NARAL?) aren't applying for these plates. The 9th Circuit court probably ruled that AZ's refusal to grant the plate was unconstitutional because the state prohibiting free speech based on content (which isn't really allowed via several U.S. Supreme Court cases).

This case says NOTHING about pro-choice license plates. (If anything, if a state turned down a pro-choice organization's application for a license plate, you'd have a great discrimination/1st amendment case). From what I understand, ANY non-profit can apply for one (every university and a bunch of organizations have them in LA where I live -- there are over 150 choices). Obviously, some anti-abortion groups got smart and figured out this was a good way to get their message out. Why is it taking the pro-choice organizations so long to do the same? We can't get the license plates until an organization applies for them... and it's a great fundraiser since the organization gets half the benefits!! Come on now! Don't bitch about your losses when they aren't really lost. We could have the same plates!

@myid8myego- You stole my thoughts on this abstinence only debate. I mean no matter how one feels about the prospects of teens having sex, here's a news flash for the fundie crowd: teens don't remain teens forever. They grow up and become adults, DUH. Wouldn't it be a good idea to arm them with accurate, comprehensive information on all aspects of reproductive health and sexuality BEFORE they are confronted with important, possibly life altering decisions. Its the same reason we don't hand teens the keys to the car and say "have fun" without a comprehensive course of drivers ed. But i guess that's the mentality of the Bush junta: let's spend billions, not to educate kids, but to keep 'em stupid and we'll call it "No Child Left Behind".

"Maybe it's good to encourage younger teens to postpone being sexually active in relationships, but it seems like a blanket objection to teen sexuality shuts down a lot of potentially life-enhancing conversations!"

The Governor said she doesn't believe teens "should" be having sex, but is willing to provide "complete" information. I doubt she has children that young herself. Other parents can do what they want, to encourage those "potentially life-enhancing conversations" with children, and within bounds, teachers as well.

"I guess, politically, she can't come out in favor of truly, truly integrated and comprehensive sexuality education . . ."

Which would include what, if you believe her "complete information" would be lacking? You can't get much more liberal than what I read on my own in elementary school at the school library, or in high school at the high school library, and one might get arrested if they bought or sold "Show Me!" openly today. I happened to see it at the house of a friend in 1985.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_Me%21

"Show Me!" as I remember it, included photographs of nude children from the age of about six and up, and teens, including close ups and scenes of sexual activity including oral sex by teens. By its story book nature, I believe it was targeted at young children, before they learned that body parts or sex was "dirty." I doubt a lot of parents would allow their children to study it, if they knew about it.

How about "It's Natural" a clip of which is available on YouTube? Would that be accepted by families to be taught to their children in schools? How about "Sex Education Learning The Truth: An alternative to the Abstinence-Only Program" a 23:50 long audio clip available at veoh?

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v828991tT6Jgrxr?searchId=5211804357057602676&rank=8

I believe it is medically sound. They properly recognize sex acts with another person, including mutual masturbation, are not 100% safe to prevent pregnancy or STIs. They promote barrier methods for *any* contact between mucous membranes, which I always like, as well as promoting respectful sex for boys, including how to "prepare" for sex, solo rehearsals with a condom to prevent awkwardness and spillage of semen, and frankly informing them of the risk of 18 years of financial responsibility in the case of pregnancy and childbirth. For some odd reason, they spend little time on preparing girls for "the act," and IIRC, omitted mention of the Pill. (**YES, women should be acquainted with their own anatomy, including how it feels to be touched BEFORE ever visiting a gynecologist, much less having sex!**) Strangest of all, after mention of other sexual practices, and being about sex ed, they do not inform listeners about how to "insert a penis into a vagina" or provide pleasure for both partners during intercourse. (Come to think of it, they did not describe "how to" perform oral sex either. Hmm. And no male anatomy at all except the word "penis.")

They also inform listeners of the "very real" negative consequences of any sexual act with another, as well as promoting making the decision to have sex "like an adult," while neither promoting nor discouraging premarital sex. Other than its brevity, I have no problem with this program at all. It is still better than talks most parents, or even teachers, nurses or doctors might have with a child about sex. But can you foresee problems many adults and even some children may have with such a frank discussion of sex at school? I certainly can.

"For some odd reason, they spend little time on preparing girls for 'the act,' and IIRC, omitted mention of the Pill. (**YES, women should be acquainted with their own anatomy, including how it feels to be touched BEFORE ever visiting a gynecologist, much less having sex!**)"

Good points. Sadly, some people out there seem to think painless first times aren't natural. One version I heard was "don't break your hymen with a tampon, it's OK if your first time hurts as long as he loves you" o_O

"Which would include what, if you believe her 'complete information' would be lacking?"

Instructions for teen girls who date boys their own age on how to lay back and think "teens should have sex" when he wants sex and she doesn't?

The point was, the unprepared woman may be in for a shock. Poor manner aside, it is no surprise some feel violated by a pelvic exam. And sex? Well, if a woman feels ashamed of looking at or touching even herself, how will she be with a partner? My first partner only believed in the missionary position, and would not allow me to make the experience more pleasant for her, or even to touch or see her private parts. How lame is that? It is no wonder she told me after meeting her future husband that she did not like sex, and did not "let him" that often. Poor husband.

"Instructions for teen girls who date boys their own age on how to lay back and think "teens should have sex" when he wants sex and she doesn't?"

Based on what we're told, I doubt this governor would "promote" sex at all.

hypothetically speaking, i'd love to be offered a "choose life" license plate, because then i could be a smartass and say "but i already did! i haven't killed myself!" or something along those lines, just to make them mad :p

hypothetically speaking, i'd love to be offered a "choose life" license plate, because then i could be a smartass and say "but i already did! i haven't killed myself!" or something along those lines, just to make them mad :p

"Maybe it's good to encourage younger teens to postpone being sexually active in relationships, but it seems like a blanket objection to teen sexuality"

OTOH, is a blanket objection to teen sexuality the only alternative to not thinking teens should have sex?

Mina, I'm not sure where you're going with this train of thought. I was not at all saying that there should be a mandate for young people to have sex! I myself had no sexual relationships as a teenager, and I don't think there's anything shameful about not being in a sexual relationship with someone.

Maybe I worded this poorly, but what I was thinking in my initial comment is that if you start from a position of disapproval of teens actively exploring their relational sexuality (the governor's statement seemed to be agreeing with the principle of abstinence-only programs, just admitting that they weren't realistic) then you aren't starting from a position which normalizes teen sexual development (not just the physical and health facts, but also the emotional components). I think we would be a lot healthier, sexually, as a nation, if we could have more integrated conversations about what it means to be sexual beings, rather then ghettoizing those conversations to phys ed classes or wherever the "sex ed" unit takes place. I was sad that her statement didn't endorse a more positive way of thinking about developing sexuality.

Which would include what, if you believe her "complete information" would be lacking?

In my book, being truly comprehensive in educating about sexuality is a lot more than providing full information about the clinical facts about anatomy, birth control and safer sex (though that's important too!) I think it's important to help young people think critically about gender, sex, and sexual orientation; about relationships of all kinds; and how their own sexuality fits into their own developing sense of themselves as adults. This is a wide-ranging conversation that should ideally happen more casually across disciplines and outside of school as well.

But I realize that people in the U.S. are deeply divided about the nature of human sexuality and its place in society, and I know it's pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking that we could ever agree on how to have these conversations in "the public square" of public schools.

OTOH, is a blanket objection to teen sexuality the only alternative to not thinking teens should have sex? - Mina

Of course not.

For instance, you can firmly believe teens (younger teens at least) should not be having sex but also fully accept (rather than blanketly objecting to) their sexuality and just advise they "take matters into their own hands".

Of course, a certain Surgeon General nominee did just that and look where it got her politically.

*

Instructions for teen girls who date boys their own age on how to lay back and think "teens should have sex" when he wants sex and she doesn't? - Mina

Actually, one of the criticisms levied against the abstinence only curricula out there is that they all seem to assume that the boys want sex and the girls don't. Of course, we shouldn't be teaching girls what you suggest (that would hardly be something feminists would support) ... OTOH, what about when she wants sex and he doesn't?

We adults need to get over ourselves. Hasn't it already been established that a significant number of teens and pre-teens are learning about "sex" via internet porn?

How can we afford NOT to teach sex ed?

Amanda Marcotte makes the "why must we fear teen sex?" argument better than I can :)

"Instructions for teen girls who date boys their own age on how to lay back and think 'teens should have sex' when he wants sex and she doesn't? - Mina

"Actually, one of the criticisms levied against the abstinence only curricula out there is that they all seem to assume that the boys want sex and the girls don't. Of course, we shouldn't be teaching girls what you suggest (that would hardly be something feminists would support)"

Yeah, that's why I suggested that it could be a negative effect instead of suggesting that it's a good thing.

"... OTOH, what about when she wants sex and he doesn't?"

The "teens should have sex" message would be just as much of a problem in those cases, and in their same-sex-date counterparts, too.

"Amanda Marcotte makes the "why must we fear teen sex?" argument better than I can :)"

Hmmm. Well, I also agree with the eyebrow raising idea that the ideal number for sex among people not prepared for it, and abortion, would be zero. Rather than anti-choice fascism, it could also suggest an ideal society where people are not sexually exploited, and every child is wanted. I thought it was also what feminists envisioned.

Marcotte: "I suspect it's because of parents, and the way your children's emerging sexuality makes you uncomfortable and reminds you that you're going to die."

Bullshit.

Hit post too early.

What makes me "uncomfortable" about my children's future emerging sexuality is the possibility I as their parent will be the one to cope with the broader aftermath of an unplanned pregnancy, paying for treatment of STIs, abortion(s), or childbirth and years of child support (which may include having a "parasite" adult in my home unable to support themselves), or I will be involved in either or both sides of the rape issue if all parties involved don't understand personal boundaries and respect.

You've conveniently limited our discussion of youth sexual exploration to couples of equal age who respect each other, and hetero, to boot. What seems to be occurring in schools in my community is boys passing girls around, and girls allegedly (by their own account) liking it (they may be brainwashed into being exploited, but probably not being raped), or *deliberately* getting pregnant. I shit you not. The teens care little for the effect such thinking or living has on their parents, the ones legally and financially responsible for them. What if my idea of sexual exploration as a teen (and I do and did have an incredible imagination) was consensual swapping, threesomes, group sex, and exhibitionism, or posting text, photos and videos of my exploits to the web? Are my parents obligated to live with that, or allow that in their home as well?

Just one reason my RN classmate the former high school teacher with a master's degree got the hell out, and just another reason why I will never teach in the US.

You've conveniently limited our discussion of youth sexual exploration to couples of equal age who respect each other, and hetero, to boot.

I'm not doing this "conveniently," but because I think--as Marcotte also pointed out--that consensual, same-age, respectful sexual relationships are a good starting-place for what positive teen sexuality might be (how adults could advocate for responsible sex between teens, while not promoting only abstinence). This speaks to your other question of how to deal with teenagers who, in your opinion, are engaging in non-consensual or self-destructive behavior. You don't say NO SEX, but you engage with them about different kinds of sexual behavior, responsibility, etc. It's not an all or nothing proposition!

And, um, where did I say anything about hetero sex exclusively?? "Teen sexuality" is not code for "teen heterosexuality." In fact, I explicitly said above that I think teenagers should be encouraged to think critically about the norms of gender, sex, and sexual orientation. The "right to sexuality" includes the right to explore your sexual orientation whatever it might be.

"that consensual, same-age, respectful sexual relationships are a good starting-place for what positive teen sexuality might be"

What about starting at fantasy and masturbation on one's own until/unless one finds and respects a same-age consenting partner who respects one back?

"You don't say NO SEX, but you engage with them about different kinds of sexual behavior, responsibility, etc. It's not an all or nothing proposition!"

Exactly! You acknowledge both the ones who want sex as teens and the ones who don't, explain the options of how to have consensual sex safely (and tell them how to go find more info!*), apply the "NO SEX" for when they can't have sex consensually (for example, "it doesn't matter how horny and lonely you feel and how arbitrary their reasons are for rejecting you, none of them owe you sex"), etc.

* if a new contraceptive isn't invented until 5 years from now then you sure can't teach teens about it today, but you can teach them how to read media critically and keep up with health news (so they can learn about it themselves 5 years from now)

"*My* opinion"? Are you going to simply allow youth sexual exploration that you may not agree with (including yes, the reality of significantly older partners, casual sex, and FaceBooking) in your own home, during the duration you are still "discussing" such issues? Apparently even Dutch parents interviewed wouldn't simply allow children under 16 to have sleep overs, or have "one night stands," "casual" sex, or what was not considered "proper/usual" "courtship" sex in their own homes. Yes, it certainly sounds like Dutch teens are indeed experiencing a more mature kind of love than many US teens, by all statistical and subjective measures in that article, and I doubt even Dutch parents would allow many US youth sex exploits in their own homes.

What about starting at fantasy and masturbation on one's own until/unless one finds and respects a same-age consenting partner who respects one back?

Totally, Mina, I agree. I don't think the possibilities of solitary sexual exploration (and a positive relationship with one's own self!) are explored enough, with young people or really in many forums for discussion about sexuality!

"*My* opinion"? Are you going to simply allow youth sexual exploration that you may not agree with (in your own home, during the duration you are still "discussing" such issues?

I meant the general "you" not you particularly. I meant that parents definitely should have a role in helping young people think about responsibility and ethics in sexuality; that recognizing teenage sexuality does not have to mean abdicating that role.

"I meant that parents definitely should have a role in helping young people think about responsibility and ethics in sexuality; that recognizing teenage sexuality does not have to mean abdicating that role."

Indeed. Now consider, as in that Dutch article, that perhaps 90% of US parents are considerably more conservative than I am, in that they do not accept teen or premarital sex, much less knowingly permit it or condone it under their roofs. Why do they need to "abdicate" to their children, any more than I, who would not approve of 24 year old sex partners for my 14 year olds, consensual experimental teen group sex, or recording and swapping amateur "child porn" photos and videos with friends (all examples from real life), in my home?

Why do they need to "abdicate" to their children, any more than I

Well, I wouldn't say they "need" too, but I think they should seriously consider the implications of what they're doing . . . and what our prudish afraid-of-teen-sex culture is doing. I think parents have a role in shaping their children's lives, but I reserve the right to critique that role if I think they're making pigheaded decisions. The article about American and Dutch teens points out that whatever the Dutch are doing seems to be making teens safer! That's information that parents who are against teens having responsible sex should think long and hard about.

"The article about American and Dutch teens points out that whatever the Dutch are doing seems to be making teens safer!"

And again, I point out, the Dutch teens turn out more conservative than American teens, as well - about one third the number of sex partners (or alternately keeping partners three times as long), and believing sex is part of "love." Dutch parents have less to be concerned about than American parents. I'd really like to see what Dutch parents think of US teens or how they would raise American kids, in the US.

Japanese teens have long been recognized as having among the lowest birth rates in the world alongside the Netherlands, if not the lowest; with a fertility rate among girls 15-19 one-sixteenth that of in the US in the early 90s according to unicef, and a pregnancy rate one-seventh to one-tenth that of the US, depending on source and year (Google, no quotes: japan teen pregnancy). The abortion rate is also relatively low, about 20% of pregnancies vs. US one-third (and in Japan, where just 1.3% of women are on the pill, and alternatives are condoms or nothing (adoption is also extremely unpopular), abortion IS used AS bc, despite denials).

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-japan.html

I have witnessed Japanese public school sex education (begins in early elementary school) in person and discussed on Japanese television. It is technical and dry. (See the entire seven part "Sex Education of Japan" series posted by the user sun10ro for a visual sample of texts and materials - ignore the English subtitles with their "sex revolution" as dangerous agenda - they also rail against the Japanese practice of young girls willingly selling themselves for pocket money):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW_xGOHtJDU

Japanese children are able to discuss sexual matters with qualified teachers (health/P.E./health room "nurse"/homeroom teacher, etc.), and capitalism has produced a large industry to support sex in Japan, catering to men and women. Sex and sexual matters are also less of a taboo in public or in media (don't even start on actual porn). Sound nice? The teen sex/pregnancy/abortion/birth results are similar to, or even better than what is seen in the Netherlands. Would you like a system like that of the Japanese in the US?

No, because sex is still a very awkward or taboo topic for the home or family. Japanese in recent* (as opposed to ancient) tradition have very conservative views on sex, and actual institution rules or the Japanese concept of "shame" drive pregnant teens out of school (or pregnant single women out of the workplace). The system of the Netherlands is not the only way to get those kinds of results, and the Netherlands is logically not the only model US policymakers would look to in search of results.

* In traditional religion and in ancient tradition, sex was considered a natural part of life, and such as prostitution or community wide fertility (sex) rituals were the norm (and as a novelty, can be seen in rural areas today - see japan fertility festival via Google, or "Kanamara Festival 2007" on YouTube lol). One reason for the change to the more conservative was US influence in the Occupation post WWII, another is shame over harboring such "backward" beliefs and traditions in the modern industrialized world. Those meddling xians again.

Sex ed continues to be debated in Japan (Google: japan sex education), but here are some more progressive materials available lol:

http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/?p=576

Recent photos - also read the red text machine translated link:

http://news.3yen.com/2005-03-14/japanese-sex-ed/