Should Sex Ed be reformed?

[elder999]

Do you think schools or parents in discussing Sex Ed should discuss these alternatives along with abstinence or do you think abstinence alone is enough?

I honestly think it should be both. It's no surprise what stupid things people choose to believe, and pass on to their kids. Abstinence alone is a lofty goal, but it's a rare kid who's stronger than raging hormones-it's kind of like telling a kid that there's this really powerful motorcycle that he already "knows how" to ride-doesn't need any "lessons" there, 'casue they're hardwired. The bike's sitting right over there, and here are the keys, in fact, you've had them for the last year or so, and they're hardwired too. Now, I'm going to go away, and you shouldn't ride it, and just to make sure you follow my advice, I'm going to keep the leathers and helmet that are needed for minimal safety.

"Here's the keys, don't you ride that thing until I say you're ready." Right. That'd work....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I can imagine people would be surprised if you tell them you don't want your children knowing about sex and your children were in their twenties for example.

People in their twenties may behave as children, but they are not. I do not claim the right or responsibility to teach twenty-year-olds morals, nor would I expect them to be obliged to obey their parents.

I didn't say well rounded etc children I said adults and thats where you are missing the point and didn't read my post. I said this is the aim when bringing them up to be adults, to teach them how to make decisions and take responsiblity. You want them to be this way as adults.

Yes, I do want them to be this way as adults. Again, I read your post, and again, I am being quite honest in how I understood it. Please do not call me a liar for simply being unable to read your mind.

I think you may be assuming I'm talking about young children, I'm not. In this country children can leave school at 16, they can be out working, living on their own and they can even join the army at this age so our aim has to be that these young adults have the life skills to be responsible citizens.

And there you have it. "Our aim has to be." No, it does not. "Our" means that "we" have to impose our will on children against parental desires.

If you mean "my aim" instead of "our aim," please say so. Otherwise, you are again telling us what all of our aims ought to be, parental desires aside.

I do not want any hypothetical child of mine to be necessarily taught the things that you want them taught with regard to sexual education. I quite grasp that you find this shocking and wrong, but it is what it is. I was quite right in reading your earlier statements as a blanket insistence that what YOU believe (or liberals believe, if you will) must be right, because it begins from a presumption that not everyone shares.

"Our aim," bollocks. You aim for your children, I'll aim for mine. Your desires as to what my children should be taught are not right when you give parents the right to teach morals to their children and then insist that 'we' ought not to permit that after all.

 

[kaizasosei]

People seem to get really excited over nothing, different cultures in different ways. Maybe the educational system does impose its will in many ways. I would think that there are sadly many parents incapable of addressing the issue with their kids, so i would think that it's good to inform. But as a parent i don't see really that big of a deal to informing another person of simple facts.

If the sexed should or not be reformed or not, i think i don't know enough on the matter, but if it should, maybe the op Tez3 should be in charge of that.




j

 

[shesulsa]

Another good example of where idealism and reality must meet or ignorance abounds.

My ideal for my daughter is that she abstain until she's an adult woman, that as an adult woman she makes careful biological and moral choices and procreates healthy, normal children and lives a full, happy life.

Reality: she's a teenager. Need more really be said here? I've been to the high school, I've seen the dark nooks and crannies which go unmonitored and are easily available.

The bottom line: I want my daughter to have the RIGHT information - the medical facts and the moral fiber with which to ultimately make her own decision - because I can accept that this is exactly what she will ultimately do. I think to expect your children to obey you is idealism - nothing wrong with that so long as you realize idealism is tofu ... it really sucks until you flavor it.

I don't expect everyone to want their children to have all the facts - please! Knowledge is not what Christianity is about - I learned that the hard way. But what i don't understand is the blatant willingness to risk their very lives based on an ideal they may or may not subscribe to and what their bodies are cloaking regardless. That said, I'm still considering purchasing a chastity belt for the daughter.

I knew a girl in high school who went uneducated and did exactly what her parents told her to do ... submit to the one you love (the commandment for women, supposedly). Well, she submitted all right. Later she submitted that baby to the state.

Good luck to you, Bill. I pray your idealism comes to fruition ... with or without the pepper of reality.

 

[Tez3]

Some parents believe that children will become adults and that they will then begin to make the decisions that will make them 'well-rounded' (whatever that is), independent, and responsible members of society. But they also believe that these values are to be instilled by parents and not by society in the form of formal indoctrination into morals the state considers fair, just, and correct.

I have no problem with schools teaching about eggs, sperm, intercourse, and that's where babies come from. That's all biology. I object to them telling children that some sex acts my religion disapproves of are actually OK, or that they can have sex if they want to, no matter what parents tell them, and oh by the way, here's a bunch of free condoms. Well-rounded? Perhaps, if you mean the girls all end up with round heels.

As I think the same and said so why are you castigating me? I said that the biology of it should be taught in schools, I've never said the morality should. I said parent should talk to their children as Shesulsa posted so why am I being slated as the 'liberal' here who wants to teach children all about anal sex etc? I've never said that children should be told they should go out and experiment.
I don't find anything shocking or wrong, again you are reading into my posts something that's not there.
If our aim is not to have responsible, independant adults who are good citizens what the hell is it then? What exactly do you want your children growing into? I really don't understand why you are so angry about my posts.
My premise.... that society should consist of responsible, mature adults with a moral code and a sense of right and wrong. Children should be taught about sex in an age appropriate way as a part of their science curriculum. Methods of birth control, avoidance of diseases, infertility, how to check breasts and scrotum for lumps (thus saving lives from cancers which if caught early saves lives) menstruation, menapause ( thus teaching men it's normal and not a lewd joke) body imaging (teaching children that big boobs and skinny bodies aren't really the norm) etc should all be taught. This is the mechanics of sex, having same sex partners, fetishes, experimenting etc aren't.
Parents are responsible for the when of having sex, the talking over of it, the right time and the wrong time etc.
I said quite clearly our aim as in this country we have young adults at 16 who are independant of parents. What you do in your country is up to you but we know what our aim is.
I have not said anywhere that we should not permit parents to do anything! Where did I said parents should be banned from anything?

 

[shesulsa]

I have always maintained that sex is a double-edged blade ... it is a health issue (life or death) and it is a moral/social issue.

While I think the medical facts - the how, what, where, when, who ... all facets ... should be taught by qualified professionals as part of regular education. Problem is, even with what we have now, the facts being taught are medically wrong!!

I think the moral and social implications should be covered at home.

As to providing teens access to condoms, etcetera being the same as saying, "It's okay to have sex now," I think that's bull ****. We have alcohol around - hell, we MAKE our own wine. It's around. All the time. The kids help us make it. We drink wine in front of them, but not to excess - they have never seen us drunk. Our purpose is for the health benefits of carefully made, natural wine and they are clear on that. We've discussed the responsibilities of alcohol use as well as the enjoyment factor. They have had the benefit of seeing someone addicted and witnessing the repercussions of substance abuse.

Some day, they will have the house to themselves or they will go to a party where alcohol is flowing. I will not be there. But not only will our lessons be there, they will know which drink has how much alcohol, they will have a phone number to call if they do screw up for a SAFE RIDE HOME, they will hopefully be able to stop their friends from drinking to excess and will be able to trust us with understanding and responsibility.

But they are quite clear that they do NOT have permission to drink here nor anywhere else. I will not provide alcohol for them and their friends at a party, I will not allow them to get drunk at my house with me when underage because that's not right. But should they do so elsewhere, they will know where their quality infomation came from - they will know who cared enough to tell them the truth. And they will likely come to me.

Sex is not much different, imho.

 

[Tez3]

Shesulsa, you are right, we have to give our children the tools to cope with life and I believe you are doing it in the best way. As I said before my daughter is 24 next month and was brought up as you are bringing your daughter up. Mine has a good job, lives with a fantastic boyfriend, has a nice home and car and good moral values. I couldn't be more proud of her.
It's all very fine expecting your children to obey you but thats assuming you are going to be there all the time to guide them, sadly this isn't always possible. I wanted my children to be able to stand on ther own two feet and to make the decisions that affect them, and frankly having sex is going to affect them far more than me in reality, in a well thought out way.
Having sex though isn't the worst thing you should worry about though and making too much of it can lead to problems. I think it's too tied up with religion and the Christian idea of sex and women being 'dirty'.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have not said anywhere that we should not permit parents to do anything! Where did I said parents should be banned from anything?

You say both things. First, as you stated, you do say that the biology aspect should be taught in school, and the morality aspect taught by parents. We agree on that.

Then you go further and state what a parent ought properly to believe and therefore teach to their child. You state a premise as if it is a fact, then draw a conclusion based on that premise. I am saying that I disagree with your premise (that a parent ought to want to teach their child about all aspects of sexuality) and therefore I disagree with your conclusion.

Where we seem to be getting at loggerheads is that you still think your premise (that teaching all aspects of sexuality is part of creating a well-rounded adult) is a universal truth, and I do not think it is.

Of course I would want a child of mine to be a good, intelligent, open-minded, thoughtful, wonderful and well-rounded person. However, I don't think that teaching them all aspects of sexuality, and particularly that various forms of sex are OK, is part of that.

I don't think that teaching children that it is OK to experiment with sex when I have told them NO is OK, either. Therefore, I find myself not in alignment with raising what you have described as a 'well-rounded' adult. If that is your definition, then no, I do not want a child of mine to be that.

If we were having this discussion about driver's education, it would not seem so difficult. The school may teach driver's education, but they do not either condone nor encourage driving without a parent's permission. They don't slip the kid a driver's license and a rental car and suggest they take it out for a spin if that's what they really want to do, no matter what the parents want.

A parent may likewise allow or disallow their child from driving as they wish, and none dare gainsay their right or insist that their child will not grow up to be 'well-rounded' if they are not permitted to drive.

Yet let the parent ban sexual activity instead of driving a car, and suddenly that's just not OK for the parent to do. Suddenly it is all about society's right to insist that the child be given a 'well-rounded' education, to include sexual activity if they so desire, despite parent's objections or even laws against it.

And by the way, I'm not angry. Many people think I must be furious and slamming the keyboard and stomping around muttering to myself or something. I'm enjoying some bottled water on a nice spring day, and I'm about to step out to do my laundry and get a bit to eat. I feel great, I'm happy, hope you are too. I guess my words are so direct that people imagine I'm furious when I write them. Sorry!

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

If other sexual activities are presented here is a small list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_humping

Would these be considered safer effective alternatives to the already debunked absentience only idea? Would this lead to a more conscious choice involving pregnancy and STD's because it allows kids for a more hands on approach?

 

[Tez3]

Shesulsa, you must have posted at much the same time as me! all I can say is....... EXACTLY!

Bill, I have never said that parents should believe anything.
This is what I said about parents teaching children
"If you talk to your children, if you explain everything to them as Shesulsa posts, if you treat it as you would every other subject, the children will respond. It's not absinence teaching, it's not teaching them to use alternatives, it's teaching them to think for themselves, to make decisions and the consequences of those decisions. Thats what you are aiming for isn't it...bringing up your children to be well rounded responsible independent adults? "

This is about parents teaching their children, I didn't say what they should teach did I?
I also said " Parents are free then to teach their children hopefully by example, their morality"

You have made a great deal of assumptions about me which frankly upset me. Yes you do come across as angy....angry and determined to not understand what I'm say8ing.

At no point did I say that being well rounded means knowing every sexual practice in the book, well rounded means having the tools to be able to make an informed decision by having the facts to hand. it. Being well rounded obviously means something different to you.
well-round·ed (w

l

roun

d

d)
adj. 1. Comprehensively developed and well-balanced in a range or variety of aspects: a well-rounded scholar; a well-rounded curriculum



anyway I have to go and do a night shift. Have fun.


__________________

 

[Tez3]

The Dutch way of presenting sex education.

http://www.teachers.tv/video/12118

 

[JDenver]

The US has;
- the highest per capita abortion rates in the industrial world
- highest per capita teenage pregnancy rates
- highest number of per capita STD's

Industrialized nations with the lowest rates all have full sex ed courses starting as young as 7 years old (no, nothing weird....).

If you take these stats at all seriously you know that something must change. The status quo is failing miserably. It isn't that parents need to whip their kids or that kids have to stop watching movies. Kids in the US have no idea what they're doing when they take their pants off and these stats prove it.

 

[tellner]

If you take these stats at all seriously you know that something must change. The status quo is failing miserably.

No! We have to keep on doing EXACTLY what we have been doing but harder, more strictly and spend more money on it.

Sorry. I was channeling my inner Fundie for a moment

 

[tellner]

Coincidentally, there's a very interesting article in Salon that touches on this...

The virginity fetish Why is our culture so obsessed with girls' chastity? Author Jessica Valenti talks about how purity balls and "barely legal" porn both feed the same idea: That a woman's worth is between her legs.



...


You start the book by announcing that virginity … doesn't actually exist.
I did not know this [before I wrote the book]. I interviewed a woman named Hanne Blank, who wrote this great book called "Virgin: The Untouched History." She ran a Web site for teens about sex called Scarleteen, and the question she got most often from teenagers was, “I did such and such, am I still a virgin?” She was like, “You know, I don't know!” So, she went to the Harvard Medical School library to try to find a standard definition for virginity, and she couldn't find one. Apparently, there is no medical definition at all.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The US has;
- the highest per capita abortion rates in the industrial world

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo_percap-health-abortions-per-capita

I believe you will find that honor belongs to Russia. Furthermore, 'per capita abortions' says nothing about how sex education, or the lack of it, affects abortions. One might recall that it was the 'abortion right on demand' people who also favor the most liberalized sex education programs. Now we have both, and suddenly the left is shocked that they got what they wanted?

- highest per capita teenage pregnancy rates

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380323,00.html

The teenage pregnancy rate rose in 2008 for the first time since 1991; it had been steadily dropping. Funny, now that we've proven teaching abstinence doesn't work, suddenly teenage pregnancy rates are on the rise again.

- highest number of per capita STD's

http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticsworldwide.htm

Again, I'm afraid not. In fact, North America ranks nearly the lowest

Industrialized nations with the lowest rates all have full sex ed courses starting as young as 7 years old (no, nothing weird....).

Not true at all - Europe, with the most progressive sexual education courses, has a higher rate of STD infection.

If you take these stats at all seriously you know that something must change.

Even if they are not true?

The status quo is failing miserably. It isn't that parents need to whip their kids or that kids have to stop watching movies. Kids in the US have no idea what they're doing when they take their pants off and these stats prove it.

Even if the stats are not true?

I think before leaning on statistics to prove a point, the statistics ought to have some basis in fact, or it's like having your crutch kicked out from under you.

 

[MJS]

I was reading the paper today and a 16 yr old was asking a Sex columnist about how her boyfriend does not want to use a condom and she does not want to use the pill and what they can do.

The Sex columnist spoke about how people say abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy. The Sex columnist then listed other possible ways to be sexual intimate such as mutual masterbation ,using devices(toys) anal sex and oral sex and so on.

Do you think schools or parents in discussing Sex Ed should discuss these alternatives along with abstinence or do you think abstinence alone is enough?

This tells me, that is a 16yo is asking a sex columnist about sex, that the childs parents are not doing their part by teaching their kids about sex. IMHO, this is something that a parent should be doing. The school of course, should provide sex ed. classes as well. I think that alot of the times, parents think that their kids wont have sex, or they try to think that if they protect their kids from it, that they won't end up like all the other people that we see, ie: 13yr olds with babies. Sadly, those parents are living in a fantasy if they honestly think that their kids will never see or hear about sex. I mean, turn on the tv and theres a damn good chance you'll see people in bed, kissing, etc.

I'd rather teach my kids and instill good judgement in them, rather than have them know nothing and get themselves in trouble.

 

[MJS]

i would say that sex ed should be changed.

they should take the girls to the welfare office and show them the women with 5 kids from 5 men, who cant hold down jobs and SUFFER for being sexually STUPID about birth control

They should take the boys to talk to men who are forced to live in abject poverty because of crippling child support payments. all because they didnt want to wear a condom.

They should sit the little people down and tell them "you may think he i cute now, in 10 years you wont even want to admit that you went out with him"

make them do ride alongs with the police so they can see crack whores.

find a way to ake them see that real life isnt like friends, where you can sleep with anyone, a new one everywee and there are never consequences.

show them the numbers on herpes, and HPV

then remind them that NOT screwing is the only way to avoid all that.

simple really

I like this post. However, as good of an idea as it seems, part of me thinks that it wont work. The reason....kids get into car accidents all the time, around prom time, the local FDs and PDs stage mock major accidents, to show the kids the reality of DUI, etc. The schools hold safe after prom parties, to give the kids a safe place to have fun, without the risks of anything bad happening. But, there're still kids who disregard that, have the 'it won't happen to me' attitude, and wind up in a jam anyways.

Again, I'm not totally disagreeing with you, just saying that as much as we hope this idea works, it isnt 100%.

 

[MJS]

Should we teach children it is OK to cross the street without mommy or daddy, because they're going to do it anyway? Or may we continue to insist that they abstain from crossing the street by themselves?

Abstinence is not a dirty word, and it is entirely acceptable for a parent to absolutely deny a course of action to a child. DO NOT DO THIS. Plain, simple, easily understandable, and within a parent's purview.

We insist that our children not snitch cookies from the cookie jar, we expect them to obey us, but when it comes to sex, whoops, guess they're going to do whatever they want to do!

If it was a tattoo on their face instead of sex, you'd feel you have a right to say something, a right to stop your juvenile child from doing something very stupid that they'll regret later. But when it comes to sex? Nope, can't control them.

Sorry, not buying it.

See my first post in this thread regarding your comments. I will add though, that if parents insist on wishing that their kids dont have sex, a reason should be given. If parents just say, "NO DONT DO IT!!!" without anything further, that, IMO, will do nothing but raise their curiosity.

 

[Thesemindz]

It's not in my camp. I would be a bit upset, as a parent, to discover that little Jimmy had been taught in a mandatory sex-ed class at school that if he can't keep his phallum bway-bway tucked away, it's OK to get some condoms and live it up.

It seems odd to me that as a parent, I could tell little Jimmy that God exists, Jesus saves, and etc - and the school won't tell Jimmy that daddy is a liar. But if I tell Jimmy that he is not allowed to engage in sexual intercourse, the school can override my teachings and tell little Jimmy that it's OK to get some condoms and get bizzy.

I am not a parent. Probably a good thing. Because this would bother me lots. Sexual education is not reading, not writing, not the arts, it is none of the things that are the mandate of a public school. If I were a parent, I would want to be the only authority speaking to my child on that subject.

I really don't see it as the purview of the Board of Education to determine what my child believes from the point of view of sexual education. I don't want public schools to teach religion, and I don't want them to teach sexual behavior and what is right, wrong, or permissible in society to children.

It usurps the role of the parent in a way I see as improper. Much like many of you would probably see it if we were talking about teaching a state religion in class against your will.

Actually Bill, I'm in complete agreement with you in so much as I don't think sexual education should be the purvue of the state. Parents are, and should be held, responsible for educating their children, and such education should fall directly to them, or to some individual that they expressely and voluntarily delegate that authority to.

This should not be taught in our compulsory public education system. It compels students to attend, and by extension, compels our children to be taught the sexual proclivities of the state, which I would contend are not in the best interest of the people.


-Rob

 

[Thesemindz]

It's not dirty, it's not dangerous in itself merely a normal function of human beings however lack of knowledge of this function is very dangerous.

While I agree with the tone of your post in general, I would say that sex can be quite dangerous if it is practiced in an irresponsible manner. Teen sexual behavior can be a contributing factor to poverty, poor education, and criminal activity, both for men and women. It can lead to child abuse or neglect. It can lead to destructive relationships, spousal abuse, and broken homes. It can lead to many different diseases, some of which are life threatening.

I'm not saying sex is bad. I'm saying it needs to be taken seriously.


-Rob