Should Sex Ed be reformed?

[Bill Mattocks]

[
Bill, could you please tell me where you are getting the information that schools are teaching kids that experimenting with sex is okay (especially against their parents' permission)? Being a librarian, the spouse of a public school teacher, and a product of public education myself, I have NEVER, EVER heard of teachers encouraging kids to go out and have sex. NEVER. I have, however, seen kids being told by teachers NOT to have sex, but without being told what constitutes sex.

When a school offers sex education and gives away free condoms on demand, as well as offers underage girls access to birth control methods, without notifying the parents, they are encouraging sexual behavior.

http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/01110.html

Yes, you are right - the teachers don't say "Go out and have sex." What they say is "It is risky to go out and have sex. Have a condom, but whatever you do, don't have sex using it."

Let us not play silly buggers regarding this situation. During prohibition, many companies sold grape juice with instructions on what not to do, because that might make wine, and wine was illegal. Gasp. Now they tell the kids not to have sex, but here, have a condom, or here, have some birth control pills. Some even offer state-paid abortions for juvenile girls on demand, no parental notification there, either. Don't worry, we can't tell your parents by law. Now go have fun - no sex, now, remember!

Public school sex ed is intended to give the facts, not to convey any moral/religious or pro-juvenile sex message. If you know of a teacher or school that is doing that, I suggest you report them to your local school board.

Sexual education does not belong in public schools, period. How sex works? Sure, that's biology class. That there are people who have other kinds of sex than your basis heterosexual sort? Sure, sociology class. Have a condom kid? No.

 

[MJS]

Personally, I think the best thing to do is to give kids facts and information. The whole notion of not educating them seems foolish to me.
Like it or not, they will end up in a situation where their hormones are telling them to have sex (for boys this is 24/7) and that is where the information you provided can make a difference.

I am not saying you have to give them condoms if you don't want, but giving them clear information can't hurt. That way, they won't end up in the back seat of a car, armed with the 'knowledge' that you can't get pregnant first time...

Keeping kids ignorant is not a solution. That is just sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'lalalalalala' and hoping that nothing bad happens.
Kids will have sex, whether you like it or not. They only thing you can control is how much they know, and whether they have that information from a trusted source or not.

Probably one of the best posts I've read so far in this thread!!! This pretty much echos my thoughts. We never want to see anything 'bad' happen to anyone. I think that people are really living in a fantasy dream, if they think that kids won't do this or that.....they will.

As it was said in this post and in mine....I'd rather teach them and even provide them with the proper protection, instead of my son coming home and telling me that he got his gf pregnant or my daughter coming home telling me that she is pregnant. For the record, I dont have kids. I'm simply speaking from what my parents taught me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Probably one of the best posts I've read so far in this thread!!! This pretty much echos my thoughts. We never want to see anything 'bad' happen to anyone. I think that people are really living in a fantasy dream, if they think that kids won't do this or that.....they will.

As it was said in this post and in mine....I'd rather teach them and even provide them with the proper protection, instead of my son coming home and telling me that he got his gf pregnant or my daughter coming home telling me that she is pregnant. For the record, I dont have kids. I'm simply speaking from what my parents taught me.

This is all well and good for what you would do with regard to your children.

Now how does that apply to sexual education as taught in schools?

How does it apply to parents who do not want the public schools teaching this 'correct' education to their children?

And do parents have the right to teach the 'wrong' information regarding sex to their children if they prefer?

 

[MJS]

This is all well and good for what you would do with regard to your children.

Thank you.

Now how does that apply to sexual education as taught in schools?

Sex Ed. should be a part of a health class. At least it was in my high school. I'm sure there're set things that are to be covered.

How does it apply to parents who do not want the public schools teaching this 'correct' education to their children?

Then write a letter saying that they dont want their child to participate in the class? However, if its something required, I dont know what can be done. Nobody said, at least not that I saw, that the schools version was 'correct, the end all, be all' of sex ed, but just another subject. I doubt that the schools are encouraging the kids to have sex.

And do parents have the right to teach the 'wrong' information regarding sex to their children if they prefer?

Wrong info? Not sure what you mean Bill. Are you saying that the parents may want the option to, hmm...how do I say this...Sugar Coat things so their kids will get a taste, but not too much?

Of course Bill, what you just said, can really apply to anything in school.

Bill, parents can do what they want. However, for those that live with the rose colored glasses on, those that think that their "little girl" will never dream about those naughty, naughty things, I dont want them to be surprised when their little girl experiments, because curiosity got the better of her.

Guess I dont see what the big deal is man. Just lay it on the line. Have that chat that all parents cringe about, and teach the kids right from wrong, the do's and don'ts, and yes, provide them with the resources to use. I'd rather give my kid a condom, making sure that they know how to use it, and have safe sex, instead of experimenting some night in the back lot of the industrial park at 12am in the back of a car.

Like I said, kids are going to drink, they're going to party, they're going to have sex. Teach them right, always re-enforce that, and hope that when the time comes, they use that good judgement.

My parents knew I was going to parties, and I'm sure they knew what was going on. We can't keep our kids in a bubble for their entire life, because if we do, when they head off to college and they're on their own, look out.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I hear what you're saying, but you tell us what you're OK with and then sort of imply that everyone should be OK with that.

And that's been the nature of the discussion in this thread. The question was whether or not sex ed should be changed. Everyone seems to be wanting to say how they feel about sex ed, and not really addressing the issue of what rights parents who do not feel the same way they do should do.

When I've raised the point that in my opinion, parents should be the teachers of sex ed to their kids, everyone appears to want to explain why parents should feel the way THEY feel - but not what happens if a parent just refuses to feel the way others think they should feel.

The point is this - if a parent wants to lay down the law to their kids and say "Do not have sex, I forbid it," the answer should not be how do we explain to this clod how wrong he is. It should be well, this guy is a clod, but he's got the right to raise his children as he sees fit.

People perceive a problem - kids getting std's, kids getting pregnant. Many of them believe that abstinence training does not work. That may or may not be true, but the overall consensus in this thread appears to be to proceed directly from "here is the problem" to "and therefore we need to do this" without stopping to ask if it is any business of public school system to override parental rights.

I have read several responses to my comments, written as if to a child, trying to explain to me why full education is better than teaching abstinence. For myself, I don't disagree with that. My disagreement is that no matter how wonderful it is, it is not the right of the school system to override the will of the parent.

Tez has gone to great lengths to point out the same thing - that the part about 'permission' to have sex should reside with the parent - and I agree. But then she tells me (again, as if I were retarded) that full disclosure is better than just saying 'no'. And again, that basically says "You ought to want to do this, but if you don't want to do this, you should be compelled to do this."

My basic point - parents have the right to teach their children sexual education and to NOT have the public school system do it. If they have that right, they have the right to teach it even in a manner you disagree with, a way you think is stupid or self-destructive or just plain wrong. If they do not have that right, then we have a different disagreement.

 

[arnisador]

How does it apply to parents who do not want the public schools teaching this 'correct' education to their children?

Same as evolution--they can teach them it's wrong at home and church, but the schools have a duty to form educated citizens. Public schools are a public benefit.

And do parents have the right to teach the 'wrong' information regarding sex to their children if they prefer?

Of course parents can teach their children as they wish. I suppose they could teach them to drive on the left side of the road if they wanted to.

 

[teekin]

When a school offers sex education and gives away free condoms on demand, as well as offers underage girls access to birth control methods, without notifying the parents, they are encouraging sexual behavior.

http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/01110.html

Yes, you are right - the teachers don't say "Go out and have sex." What they say is "It is risky to go out and have sex. Have a condom, but whatever you do, don't have sex using it."

Let us not play silly buggers regarding this situation. During prohibition, many companies sold grape juice with instructions on what not to do, because that might make wine, and wine was illegal. Gasp. Now they tell the kids not to have sex, but here, have a condom, or here, have some birth control pills. Some even offer state-paid abortions for juvenile girls on demand, no parental notification there, either. Don't worry, we can't tell your parents by law. Now go have fun - no sex, now, remember!



Sexual education does not belong in public schools, period. How sex works? Sure, that's biology class. That there are people who have other kinds of sex than your basis heterosexual sort? Sure, sociology class. Have a condom kid? No.

Bill, Exactly what are Your solutions then? No sex Ed in class. Fine what about kids who's parents don't talk to them except at full drunken scream "CUM EER EW LIL *****". Think she'll get a all the correct info she needs, support to make the right moral choices? Money for birth control or condoms to prevent STD's? What if she gets pregnent, what does she do? Who does she tell? Where does she go? Lets talk about this girl and "Now go have Fun".
Lori

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, Exactly what are Your solutions then? No sex Ed in class. Fine what about kids who's parents don't talk to them except at full drunken scream "CUM EER EW LIL *****". Think she'll get a all the correct info she needs, support to make the right moral choices? Money for birth control or condoms to prevent STD's? What if she gets pregnent, what does she do? Who does she tell? Where does she go? Lets talk about this girl and "Now go have Fun".
Lori

It's a difficult question, isn't it? Some parents, given the power to raise their children as they see fit, fail to do so, or do so in such a fashion that we all dread the results.

I don't like that so many parents fail in their duties and responsibilities.

But I don't see the solution to that problem in usurping that right from parents - it doesn't just take the authority to raise their child as they see fit from lousy parents, but also from good ones.

Just like gun control. There are always idiots with guns. Fortunately, they are a tiny percentage of the gun-owning public. It is unfortunate that such idiots exist, and I don't have any ready answers for that problem, except that I believe restricting the rights of all guns owners, including the responsible ones, isn't it.

There is a basic political aspect to problems of this sort, and I've been talking about it in this thread. In basic terms, liberals see social problems and believe the answer to them is to get the government involved. Conservatives see the same social problems, and believe that families should resolve them. I'm conservative. So there you go. I almost never think the answer to a problem is to give more power to the government.

 

[Xue Sheng]

My 8th grade health class had sex education in it waaaaaaay back in the stone age. It basically scared the hell out of me and did not give me the desire to go off and start having sex with anyone. My health class also scared me to death about all sorts of shared parasitic infestations that are, in reality, some are rather rare. But then maybe there goal was to make me afraid to touch ABSOLUTLY everyone

Of course I was a bit young and just starting to get over the whole “girls are icky” stage and I assume in High School I would have looked at it in a whole different light but by the time High school rolled around (an entire year later) I pretty much forgot all about the whole 8th grade health class. (actually this is likely the first time I have thuoght about it in years)

But I was a fairly smart kid, although hormonally challenged like all teenage boys, I was fairly level headed about it and did not run off and start having sex unprotected or otherwise.

So what does this all lead to… I don’t really know other than I do feel that there should be sex education in school, at the appropriate age (2nd grade is not appropriate) but as to what that appropriate age is, I couldn’t tell you. In my day it was not 8th grade but in the world of the 21st century kids are exposed to a lot more (to much IMO) than they were in my day.

However…Absolutely NONE of this absolves a parent from any responsibility when it comes to sex ed. There is a lot of the problem, IMO, parents are putting to much responsibility on schools for every single aspect of there child’s education and when things go wrong it is so much easier to blame the school than take responsibility for what they did or did not do that was at least a contributing factor but more likely the real reason for the whole problem in the first place.

OK, I’m done.

 

[Stac3y]

When a school offers sex education and gives away free condoms on demand, as well as offers underage girls access to birth control methods, without notifying the parents, they are encouraging sexual behavior.

http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/01110.html

Yes, you are right - the teachers don't say "Go out and have sex." What they say is "It is risky to go out and have sex. Have a condom, but whatever you do, don't have sex using it."

Let us not play silly buggers regarding this situation. During prohibition, many companies sold grape juice with instructions on what not to do, because that might make wine, and wine was illegal. Gasp. Now they tell the kids not to have sex, but here, have a condom, or here, have some birth control pills. Some even offer state-paid abortions for juvenile girls on demand, no parental notification there, either. Don't worry, we can't tell your parents by law. Now go have fun - no sex, now, remember!



Sexual education does not belong in public schools, period. How sex works? Sure, that's biology class. That there are people who have other kinds of sex than your basis heterosexual sort? Sure, sociology class. Have a condom kid? No.

Personally, I don't have a problem with condoms being available; though I will lock my sons in their rooms until they are 18 if I find out they have a use for them that involves another person. There are LOTS of things available that parents must teach their kids not to partake of. Like it or not, some kids are going to be poorly parented and are going to be doing each other at the earliest opportunity. A lot of kids have parents who don't supervise them, or who don't even care if they are sexually active (or encourage it). It's not like they are forcibly passing the things out; they are simply available at the health center.

On the other hand, giving hormonal contraception to eleven year old girls is, IMO, an extremely harmful and dangerous practice--not for "moral" reasons, but for health reasons. Birth control pills can be a contributory factor in blood clots, cancer, and even diabetes. Fortunately, according to the MSNBC article (sorry, Bill; I had to check for other details; I find it very unlikely that a Catholic publication would have a balanced stance on anything related to birth control), "“It’s very rare that middle schools do this,” said Divya Mohan, a spokeswoman for the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care." Once again, though, if the parents were that concerned about a child's health, wouldn't they be accompanying their child to the pediatrician rather than signing them up for confidential school-based health care? And, for that matter, the school's sex ed curriculum is not addressed in the article--just the (stupid, in my opinion) decision to provide contraceptives at the health center. IMO, that has nothing to do with the curriculum. They could get the same thing at their GP's office, also without parental permission.

I agree with you that the mechanics of sex should be covered in biology, the cultural and social aspects in sociology or in some otherwise labeled class that gives the facts and doesn't usurp parents' rights to provide guidance in ethics and morals. What the OP was asking, though, is whether abstinence-only sex ed, which, IMO, provides guidance in ethics and morals without much factual information, needs to be changed.

Anyway, I think we've beaten this dead horse to a pulp, so I will read any responses, but likely will not respond any more unless something REALLY piques my interest.

 

[MJS]

I hear what you're saying, but you tell us what you're OK with and then sort of imply that everyone should be OK with that.

Likewise, I'm getting the same from your posts as well. Seems like you're dead set against sed ed, that it shouldn't be taught period....and that implies that everyone should be OK with that, and if they aren't, they're bad parents, or have messed up views. My stand is that SOMETHING should be said, and it should not be sugar coated. I mean, what makes more sense....

1) "Well, er, umm...well,,its, er, um...well, ya see..."

2) Stacie, we're going to have a little chat. This is a condom. Its used......"

Dont beat around the bush, just say it. The more people stumble, the more the kids are going to be confused and curious.

And that's been the nature of the discussion in this thread. The question was whether or not sex ed should be changed. Everyone seems to be wanting to say how they feel about sex ed, and not really addressing the issue of what rights parents who do not feel the same way they do should do.

No, sex ed should not be changed. There I said it. Actually, let me clarify....I've been out of school for many years, so of course, the program should be up with the times. As for the rights of the parents....as I said, parents can say what they want, and how they want. However, do not be surprised if your kid screws up. And when I say "You're" I'm not talking about you per se, but kids and parents in general.

Tell me though Bill, and you may have said it already, and if you did, please point to the post, but what exactly do YOU feel should be taught, if anything at all?

When I've raised the point that in my opinion, parents should be the teachers of sex ed to their kids, everyone appears to want to explain why parents should feel the way THEY feel - but not what happens if a parent just refuses to feel the way others think they should feel.

Your thoughts, mine, and everyone elses are going to be different. But, as I said, if a parent tells their kid that sex is bad, sex is evil, dont do this or that until you get married, etc., do you really, honestly think, in todays world, that it'll work? I'd bet you my paycheck for a month that between the hours of 1230pm and 4pm, I can turn on ANY soap opera and see someone in bed, someone kissing, someone taking their clothes off. Sex is not limited to that. So, now the kid has 2 views, but whats the parent going to do....shelter their kid from the evils of the world? Sorry, it dont work that way. What happens when the kid goes to school, and mixes with the kids who view things differently? What about the peer pressure?

So many things to take into consideration, IMO I think that it should be said how it is, no BSing just say it.

The point is this - if a parent wants to lay down the law to their kids and say "Do not have sex, I forbid it," the answer should not be how do we explain to this clod how wrong he is. It should be well, this guy is a clod, but he's got the right to raise his children as he sees fit.

True, but those same people are living in a dream if they think that will always work. I'd be willing to bet if you went to the mall on a Fri. night and randomly picked 50 teens, more than half will have said that their have engaged in some sort of sex act.

My basic point - parents have the right to teach their children sexual education and to NOT have the public school system do it. If they have that right, they have the right to teach it even in a manner you disagree with, a way you think is stupid or self-destructive or just plain wrong. If they do not have that right, then we have a different disagreement.

Then why dont you spearhead some worldwide campaign against sex ed in school? Fact is, I'm sure there're many things that are touchy with some parents. I'm sure religion is talked about in school. Maybe someone doesnt like the way anything in done in school. There is a simple answer....home school. That way the kids can be programmed, like robots, to think, act, breath, speak, crap, eat, walk, dress, sleep, fart, and burp, the way their parents want them to.

Kids are going to be exposed to sex, as its everywhere. The less thats told, the more sugar coated it is, the more curious they'll be. If a kid has a question, the parent should be open minded enough to talk about it. I mean really, its 2009, not 1910.

 

[MBuzzy]

I really think that part of the issue here is the Sex Education does not exist for "parents like us." The kind of people who have put serious thought and consideration into this issue are not the parents of children who Sex Education was created for.

Honestly, did Sex Education come about because the school systems thought they could do it better? I doubt it. Sex Education came about because there is a rather large population of parents who simply don't care or refuse to teach their children at all. i.e. The children are not getting it anywhere else, so the school was forced to implement the program. Parents who are intelligent and caring enough to post in this thread are going to make the right choices for their children and teach them as they feel they should be taught. It is the parents who will not teach their children at all or will let their kids go out and do anything they want who need the sex education...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Tell me though Bill, and you may have said it already, and if you did, please point to the post, but what exactly do YOU feel should be taught, if anything at all?

Human reproduction taught as biology. Human differentiation taught as sociology. Historic concepts of family and sexuality taught as history.

No 'sex ed' classes, and no handing out condoms or putting girls on birth control pills without their parent's permission.

Your thoughts, mine, and everyone elses are going to be different. But, as I said, if a parent tells their kid that sex is bad, sex is evil, dont do this or that until you get married, etc., do you really, honestly think, in todays world, that it'll work?

Whether I think it would work is beside the point. You imply by your statement that since it will not work, it ought not be permitted.

I'd bet you my paycheck for a month that between the hours of 1230pm and 4pm, I can turn on ANY soap opera and see someone in bed, someone kissing, someone taking their clothes off. Sex is not limited to that. So, now the kid has 2 views, but whats the parent going to do....shelter their kid from the evils of the world? Sorry, it dont work that way. What happens when the kid goes to school, and mixes with the kids who view things differently? What about the peer pressure?

What about parental rights? What you're saying it that since kids will be exposed to all kinds of conflicting ideas about sex, what parents say doesn't matter and ought not be permitted to be the only 'official' teaching on the subject. I disagree.

So many things to take into consideration, IMO I think that it should be said how it is, no BSing just say it.

Great for you. What gives you the right to impose it on others?

True, but those same people are living in a dream if they think that will always work. I'd be willing to bet if you went to the mall on a Fri. night and randomly picked 50 teens, more than half will have said that their have engaged in some sort of sex act.

It's the same argument - parents who teach abstinence are wrong. I get that. My question is so what? They're wrong, so we take their rights away?

Then why dont you spearhead some worldwide campaign against sex ed in school? Fact is, I'm sure there're many things that are touchy with some parents. I'm sure religion is talked about in school. Maybe someone doesnt like the way anything in done in school. There is a simple answer....home school. That way the kids can be programmed, like robots, to think, act, breath, speak, crap, eat, walk, dress, sleep, fart, and burp, the way their parents want them to.

I get involved in local issues regarding public education via the school board. I go to the meetings when I can and register my opinion. That's as far as I want to take it.

Kids are going to be exposed to sex, as its everywhere. The less thats told, the more sugar coated it is, the more curious they'll be. If a kid has a question, the parent should be open minded enough to talk about it. I mean really, its 2009, not 1910.

And I mean, really, parents still have the right to raise their children as they see fit - unless you feel the government must take that right away from them. Seems like a really liberal viewpoint - that parents can't or won't do the job the way you think it ought to be done, so the government must step in and make it all better for us. That should work well for gun control, setting salary caps for employees of private companies, well, just about whatever. Let the government do it, they know best. After all, it's 2009, not 1776.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Honestly, did Sex Education come about because the school systems thought they could do it better?

The failure, or assumed failure, of parents to parent does not engage an automated process by which the government is obliged to take that over.

Most Americans have bounced a check at one time or another. A clear failure of our ability to run our finances. Better have the government step in and take control of our checkbooks?

I disagree with the entire line of reasoning that says "Parents failed. Therefore, it is the job of government to step in."

That is pure left-wing socialist thinking.

 

[Xue Sheng]

The failure, or assumed failure, of parents to parent does not engage an automated process by which the government is obliged to take that over.

Most Americans have bounced a check at one time or another. A clear failure of our ability to run our finances. Better have the government step in and take control of our checkbooks?

I disagree with the entire line of reasoning that says "Parents failed. Therefore, it is the job of government to step in."

That is pure left-wing socialist thinking.

Sadly most parents don't want to take responsibility and gladly shove it off on to the school. I don't think anyone in the government cares one way or the other until parents complained

 

[MJS]

Human reproduction taught as biology. Human differentiation taught as sociology. Historic concepts of family and sexuality taught as history.

Ok, thanks for your clarification. So, going by this then, instruction on the proper use of a condom should be left out and up to the parents discretion to teach? Fine. Of course, if the parent chooses not to teach their son/daughter about that, God help them, when the day comes, when Johnny and Suzie are fumbling with the condom, clueless as to how to properly use it.

No 'sex ed' classes, and no handing out condoms or putting girls on birth control pills without their parent's permission.

We'll agree to disagree on the sex ed.

I do agree as far as bc pills go. I mean, thats something that a doc should be doing.

The condoms...I disagree on that.

Hey, at least we agree on at least one thing.

Whether I think it would work is beside the point. You imply by your statement that since it will not work, it ought not be permitted.

Oh, lets not make this discussion about me. You made a comment, I called you on it, now you dont want to reply? Let me ask you this Bill. If 10 parents, randomly picked, told their kids not to engage in ANY sex act until they're married, in todays world, how many out of those 10 do you think will live up to that?

What about parental rights? What you're saying it that since kids will be exposed to all kinds of conflicting ideas about sex, what parents say doesn't matter and ought not be permitted to be the only 'official' teaching on the subject. I disagree.

Good Lord Bill, you keep going back to parental rights, parental rights. Yes, they do have them. Did you see where I said they can teach what they want? My point was...try as they may, they need to be realistic about it, and not try to sugar coat things. Be honest, be up front and tell the kids what its like in todays world, and what they'll be up against.

Great for you. What gives you the right to impose it on others?

And what gives you the right to impose your beliefs on me or anyone else? Once again, we're faced with the "Well, if you disagree with me, you're wrong and dont know what you're talking about" routine that you've displayed in countless other posts.

It's the same argument - parents who teach abstinence are wrong. I get that. My question is so what? They're wrong, so we take their rights away?

My drivers ed teacher as well as my family told me not to drive like an *******. But of course, when I graduated from my 4cyl. car to my V8 Camaro, do you really think that I didn't open it up a bit every now and then? Of course. So, you can preach abstinence 'til you're blue in the face, but that does not mean that you should not tell your kids about sex. BTW, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts about that poll with the teens Friday at the mall. I mean, lets hear it Bill. Do you think that out of those 50 random kids, any significant portion will say that they've never done anything?

I get involved in local issues regarding public education via the school board. I go to the meetings when I can and register my opinion. That's as far as I want to take it.

And what are the replies from people?

And I mean, really, parents still have the right to raise their children as they see fit - unless you feel the government must take that right away from them. Seems like a really liberal viewpoint - that parents can't or won't do the job the way you think it ought to be done, so the government must step in and make it all better for us. That should work well for gun control, setting salary caps for employees of private companies, well, just about whatever. Let the government do it, they know best. After all, it's 2009, not 1776.

Oh please....don't call me liberal, left, right or anything else. I'm not into politics or any of that ****. Once again, we're going back to the rights and the you're disagreeing with me routine.

As I've said, which you're a) either missing accidentally or b) on purpose, parents can do as they choose. But, they should realize that in todays world, with the way things are, those old fashion values may not always have success in todays world. Its not the perfect Ward and June fantasy land that we're living in.

 

[blindsage]

I came up through the American public school system. I had a health class with sex-ed in 7th grade (in southern California) and in 10th grade (in southern New York). I don't know why anyone would see the need for sex-ed for 3rd graders, but I also don't see the reason to object to it for middle or high school. I've been there, no, these classes do not encourage sexual activity. Yes, they are mostly biology and statistical info classes. No, they do not encourage 'experimenting'. I also come from a religious family that believes in and encourages abstinence. I was abstinent until I got married at 31. I attribute this to both a belief system that promotes abstinence and an education on the biology and the social realities of sex.

You can rail against sex-ed all day, and I would agree that there is an appropriate age to engage in discussing it in general and specific elements of it, but if your argument is education promotes activity, your logic is all kinds of flawed. And parents can still educate their children in their beliefs and values and have their children exposed to ideas that differ from theirs. There were all kind of ideas I was exposed to in the public school system that my family's beliefs conflicted with, but my parents explained the difference and engaged in discussion about it instead of railing against the evil government system that was undermining their ability to teach their children their values.

If you think your children can't learn in an environment that may teach them some things you don't agree with, then maybe you don't have enough faith in your children or in the strength of your belief system.

 

[elder999]

I came up through the American public school system. I had a health class with sex-ed in 7th grade (in southern California) and in 10th grade (in southern New York). I don't know why anyone would see the need for sex-ed for 3rd graders, but I also don't see the reason to object to it for middle or high school. I've been there, no, these classes do not encourage sexual activity. Yes, they are mostly biology and statistical info classes. No, they do not encourage 'experimenting'. I also come from a religious family that believes in and encourages abstinence. I was abstinent until I got married at 31. I attribute this to both a belief system that promotes abstinence and an education on the biology and the social realities of sex..

I also had sex-ed in 5th grade, and then in "health class" through middle school. The 5th grade class was segregated by gender, and mostly dealt with puberty, and the classes in middle school were progressively more detailed-though mostly biological and sociological in nature. In fact, I think we dealt with drugs in health class more than anything else. Oh, and I am, as some have pointed out, kind of old-I think those classes predated me by quite a bit,. though.

I also came from a religious family, and practiced abstinence right up until I had a clear opportunity to do otherwise. :lol:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It is obvious that people do not see the political ramifications of state-mandated sexual education training. Let me try a couple comparisons.

First, let's say that yes, 'abstinence' as taught by parents absolutely does not work. And we perceive a societal problem - children coming up with STD's, some of them incurable, and pregnant as well. As a society, we decide 'something must be done' and parents seem to have abdicated.

So far, that's more-or-less the situation we're in, according to many.

But let's take a slightly different tack. Instead of trying to deal with the results of children being exposed to sexual pressure in every public venue, let's try to deal with the fact that they're exposed to these things. From billboards to magazine ads to television shows marketed at children but with adult sexual themes, let's ban them. No more of them. No using models who look like they haven't been through puberty yet, no more 'young adult' novels that are heavy on the bodice-ripping, no more magazine ads or stories talking about how to be sexually attractive or what 'position he desires'. Let's get rid of all of that.

Now, I know about the VCHIP, but I really have to reject that, because, as ya'll have pointed out, parents abdicate their role in raising their children, so they won't use it. And it only shuts out Dawson's Creek or whatever the latest teenage humpathon is.

It does appear that various right-wing religious groups have tried to ban such things in the past. And the result is a howl of indignation by people who see it as an infringement on their liberties, on their right to decide what their kids are exposed to for themselves. How dare the state intrude on their rights as parents!

Hmmm.

OK, let's try something different. Ignore the sex ed thing for a moment, and let's turn our attention to another pressing societal danger amongst children. I am speaking of childhood obesity.

Now clearly, we are getting fatter as a nation (USA). We stuff our fat faces and we don't exercise, and our kids don't either. And that's a danger to our nation. From having to actually produce more food for lard-asses like myself to eat, we also have to deal with serious diseases at a much younger age than has ever been seen before.

So just like sex-ed - here we have a problem that parents have failed to address. And it has huge (pardon the pun) social ramifications.

So we should use the same logic as that which gave us state-mandated sexual education classes. We should usurp the parent's role in feeding their children, and we must feed the children breakfast, lunch, and dinner. We'll need some laws to keep parents from feeding them after they get home from school, of course, but I can see the benefit. The government knows what food is best for us - left to themselves, kids will eat Big Macs morning, noon, and night, and parents clearly won't stop them. So the government will mandate health care systems that include healthy food by law, and children in public schools will be required to partake of it.

See how we solved that problem with the aid of the government? I'm liking this already.

Let's take another, related problem. Physical fitness. We have gym classes, sure, but we don't force children to obtain a certain level of physical fitness. We just make them go to class. So perhaps we ought to institute a mandatory physical fitness training program, and assign specially-trained educators to require children to run, do situps, pushups, climb obstacles and so on - by law. They cannot pass from one class to another unless they pass these physical tests as well as the usual book learning stuff. We'll monitor their fitness level, and if it falls off track, we'll book them for mandatory summer training as well, or before and after school. Never mind what parents want, they're clearly dropping the ball here.

You know, how many kids are teased because their parents don't have money to buy them nice clothes, or refuse to do so?

Well, I think you can see where this can go.

People who discover societal issues, real or imagined (sexual activity amongst children is real, fat kids is a real problem, out-of-shape kids are real problems) and therefore think the government should take control are, as we call them in the USA, liberals. They tend towards the socialist label because that is what socialism is - government fixing problems for people who are presumed not to be able to.

State-mandated sexual education in public schools seems reasonable on the surface. There is a real problem, and yes, it is clear that not enough parents are doing anything about it. As a conservative, I shy away from the automatic answer that if parents can't or won't fix the problem, the government must.

I can't think of anything else to say about it at the moment.

 

[yorkshirelad]

BTW the wish for children to grow up to be well rounded, independant and responsible ADULTS comes from my Orthodox Jewish background not any political wish to see them as some sort of hippie.

So are you telling us that orthodox Jews teach children that abortion, contraception of all kinds, homosexuality, multiple partners and anal sex are ok as long as your protected and btw you can also be abstinate. That sounds strange to me. By orthodox, I would think that it would be the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking the piss, (well maybe a little), but I'm sure there's nothing about the above in the Torah.