My apologies then. I guess I don't keep up much with what happens in Canada.
Teens And Sex
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
My apologies then. I guess I don't keep up much with what happens in Canada.
I'm sorry -- it sounds like you crossed the line quite seriously there. You did owe the young lady an explanation and reassurance that you were OK. However, more than a brief & somewhat sketchy explanation tied to the circumstances (I'm OK; it's natural and part of being ready to make babies...) was for the parents to decide, not you. And you owed your cousin immediate notice about the incident, and what you said. If you're concerned that perhaps your cousin is uncomfortable or unwilling to give an age & developmentally appropriate explanation -- you could have offered to make it a joint conversation between the three of you.
(Just what was a 9-year old doing barging in on you in the bathroom, though? Seems like maybe some etiquette lessons are also in order.)
Teens and sex is a complicated issue, traveling as it does across bounds of culture, religion, and society. Teens are going to have sex; that's a given. Appropriate education to prevent unwanted pregnancy is a societal need -- but the best and first place it should happen is in the home. The last, but perhaps worst for many reasons, is the schools. They already have too much to do beyond actual education... At the same time, the schools may be the only place to be sure it happens... but what do we teach kids? Religious doctrine about abstinence? Strict biological fact?
There's just no easy answer. Even more frustrating is when someone outside inflicts their view of what's appropriate to be taught -- or omitted -- in your child's education.
You have a point here. I wouldn't discount your opinion because you don't have any children. The point I am making is that no child is forced into a public institution. Parents can still choose whatever kind of schooling they wish (although, regrettably, that is changing. Look up the homeschooling debate in California). If parents want a strict religious education for their child, they can still get it (for the most part).
Overall, I think a system that distributed education dollars to the schools of the parents choice or to fund homeschooling would be the most free and most fair system we could devise as a society. It balances liberty and egalitarianism nicely.
Home-schooling operates with rules and regulations. Parents must teach what would have been taught in the school system; often with the same text books and curriculum. Subject to inspection and testing of the students. So mandatory Sex Ed would not be circumvented by home-schooling, depending on the state.
So, that being said, the sex ed would have to get taught according to how the school teaches it, even if the parents disagree, or could they deviate from the protocol slightly?
Out of curiosity, is any form of sex ed taught in a religious school? Never been in one, so I have no idea.
LoneRider
Purple Belt
To answer your question: Yes. I went to Catholic School for well over half of my primary and secondary educational years (1993 to 2001). It started in the 5th Grade for me and it coincided with some age appropriate talk with my parents regarding sex. They segregated the male and female students and had one teacher teach each group.
That's the key. It depends on the state. Some states allow a lot more liberty when it comes to homeschooling then others.
Even in states that seem strict, a lot of the times the standards are written in a very broad manner, allowing the parents to offer the material up with their own spin.
I think California has the strictest set up where you actually have school officials who act like inspectors and participate in all kinds of jackbootery, but that is the exception and not the rule.
It depends on the religious school. The sex education at a Unitarian Universalist school is going to be vastly different then at a Baptist Academy. Abstinance only programs get a lot of press and are used in religious schools who have a Taboo view of sex.
Generally, though, they do teach students about sex and the moral issues surrounding it. I'm not advocating anything about their efficacy, I just know that it is taught.
Thank you both for your replies. Its good to see that even in a religious school, depending on the school, that its still taught. And I'd imagine that even if abstinance is taught, I have a feeling, and I may be wrong, that sex is viewed as a bad or taboo thing, when in reality, its not. Its one thing to tell people to abstain and give reasons why, but I dont think its right to make it sound like it you 'do it' the floor will open up, and you'll be enroute to hell, without passing go. LOL.
Blade96
Senior Master
yes i do agree that obesity and such also has a bad effect on society. But the state does regulate foods and such. Its not that they stay out altogether. It is regulated to a degree already.
why not something else as important as sex ed?
Maybe i could have gone to my cousin's mom. But then i would have had to tell her what my 9 year old cousin had told me before - that she had already tried sex before! and that she wants to have a baby! **** I'm not going to refuse to answer such a question. She asked me what it is. Im not gonna run to her mom and say You tell her what it is cause im not going to. Esepcially when the girl at 9 years of age had already had sex and is saying she wants to have a baby NOW. **** that!
and btw. Teaching BC is part of biology. You teach about how humans reproduce. Then teach ways humans have come up with ways to limit the size of their families, or to have no kids. Teaching that "we believe people should remain abstinent until married" is behavior. and how we should act.
So, I think BC should be taught. and how to use it and failure rates and success rates when using it and stuff. as well as parts of the body and their correct names. as stacy said, Those are facts. I think the state should intervene in that. But parents can teach their kids about abstinence if they like. I really dont care. It is a behavior and not a fact. But the kids have to know all the facts about sex, BC, how to use it and such. In that, I think the state should have say.
I told my then 12 year old cousin about the word penis and periods and stuff. Her mom got mad at me.
That cousin btw is now a beautiful 21 year old princess, who is dating a man seriously for five years and had nothing wrong. No pregnancy, no stds, in college and getting a good education and doing something with her life. Her bro who will be 19 in october, is the same.
If anything, I helped her, not hurt her. Both of them.
Im very proud of them.
Last edited:
And you don't think the child's mother deserved and NEEDED to know that her 9 year old was engaging in sexual activity? How would you feel if the roles were reversed, and your sister/sister-in-law kept a secret like that from you?
I never said it shouldn't be taught. I said that the schools were not the best place, in my opinion. They are, effectively, the place of last resort. Nor do I support using cutesie names for body parts, or at least not without also teaching the proper names. But I will say that someone deciding when to teach another person's children about this is overstepping the parental boundaries. I rather suspect your opinion on that may change should you become a parent.
aedrasteia
Purple Belt
Bill
I respect your serious and sincere arguments but I have a different perspective, born of experience, not of conjecture. Please consider this a difference, not an accusation.
your observation/assertion
"Yes, my suggestion is that parents step up, or we suffer the consequences. This is basic to freedom. It is not acceptable (to me) to argue that because parents won't, the government must. There is a third option; it's called failing. Freedom means freedom to suck too."
Yes. Someone suffers the consequences, more severely than you or me or we.
the third option... the "failing"...will have a name: Nikki, Robert, LaShawn, Kimberlee, Dennis and more, many more, thousands more. If they (the "failures") are very very lucky - and it is mostly luck - they will go to some other parents.
But it's far less likely and their horrible bad luck so regularly brings them abuse, neglect, and being mostly ignored, whip-lashed by stumbling attempts at "parenting" from other, older bewildered children who do feel something they call love. The older children are generally ignorant, inept, confused, overwhelmed, well-intentioned and there is no time for ramp-up. 90% of the older children are now locked in to a cycle - there is no safety net, for anyone and if there is, the holes are ripped bigger every day.
The disaster grows and finally, downstream, the ripples reach out and touch other people. Because we (still) won't let the "failures" actually just die without some gesture, somebody (an agency from the awful government) does something, often too little and too late for the unlucky "failures". But just as often, the 'help' actually helps. I've seen it. Sometimes the "failures" do die, shaken, beaten, starved. They make the news and we all notice, briefly. Unless they actually die, or suffer in some particularly appalling and horrific way, they are simply inconvenient and horribly regretable, yes. But not horrible enough to compel us to effectively stop the cycle.
the babies have no freedom. They will pay and pay and pay. Not abstract. Flesh, blood; a brain and a mind. In your world most of them, they begin life as somebody's "failing".
I broke all the rules to keep the 17 and 16 yr olds in my family from having a "failure". Her mother was a sad, neglectful alcoholic and I didn't ask her for permission. Or her father, a gentle, ineffectual alcoholic. His mother was concerned but was unable to get organized (depression and illness), step-father well-intentioned but unable to make anything change. Once I took irrevocable intervention, his mother joined in. But whatever happened with these barely functional adults, I was not going to allow it for these young people. They all recieved accurate information, love, tough love and effective, consistent contraception till they were old enough to pay for it themselves. If that means I infringed on freedom, so be it.
The one year old baby they waited to have is loved and well, they are together and they matured over 11 years. We helped them become responsible adults by intervening, no, interfering. Her friends had babies (several) at 15, 16, 17 - all but one father is long gone. The mothers are poor, dependent, marginally educated and the children are sweet but barely 'raised'. In a few years they will be able to make more babies and these mothers are likely to be too disorganized, incompetent to act effectively. And they are fatalistic about the future. Utterly disheartened. They want good for their cheldren but are just too messed up to make it happen. They might get their lives together, but while we wait for that, the babies will have more "failures", and on and on, unless somebody changes the script.
I have not a single regret.
A
I respect your serious and sincere arguments but I have a different perspective, born of experience, not of conjecture. Please consider this a difference, not an accusation.
your observation/assertion
"Yes, my suggestion is that parents step up, or we suffer the consequences. This is basic to freedom. It is not acceptable (to me) to argue that because parents won't, the government must. There is a third option; it's called failing. Freedom means freedom to suck too."
Yes. Someone suffers the consequences, more severely than you or me or we.
the third option... the "failing"...will have a name: Nikki, Robert, LaShawn, Kimberlee, Dennis and more, many more, thousands more. If they (the "failures") are very very lucky - and it is mostly luck - they will go to some other parents.
But it's far less likely and their horrible bad luck so regularly brings them abuse, neglect, and being mostly ignored, whip-lashed by stumbling attempts at "parenting" from other, older bewildered children who do feel something they call love. The older children are generally ignorant, inept, confused, overwhelmed, well-intentioned and there is no time for ramp-up. 90% of the older children are now locked in to a cycle - there is no safety net, for anyone and if there is, the holes are ripped bigger every day.
The disaster grows and finally, downstream, the ripples reach out and touch other people. Because we (still) won't let the "failures" actually just die without some gesture, somebody (an agency from the awful government) does something, often too little and too late for the unlucky "failures". But just as often, the 'help' actually helps. I've seen it. Sometimes the "failures" do die, shaken, beaten, starved. They make the news and we all notice, briefly. Unless they actually die, or suffer in some particularly appalling and horrific way, they are simply inconvenient and horribly regretable, yes. But not horrible enough to compel us to effectively stop the cycle.
the babies have no freedom. They will pay and pay and pay. Not abstract. Flesh, blood; a brain and a mind. In your world most of them, they begin life as somebody's "failing".
I broke all the rules to keep the 17 and 16 yr olds in my family from having a "failure". Her mother was a sad, neglectful alcoholic and I didn't ask her for permission. Or her father, a gentle, ineffectual alcoholic. His mother was concerned but was unable to get organized (depression and illness), step-father well-intentioned but unable to make anything change. Once I took irrevocable intervention, his mother joined in. But whatever happened with these barely functional adults, I was not going to allow it for these young people. They all recieved accurate information, love, tough love and effective, consistent contraception till they were old enough to pay for it themselves. If that means I infringed on freedom, so be it.
The one year old baby they waited to have is loved and well, they are together and they matured over 11 years. We helped them become responsible adults by intervening, no, interfering. Her friends had babies (several) at 15, 16, 17 - all but one father is long gone. The mothers are poor, dependent, marginally educated and the children are sweet but barely 'raised'. In a few years they will be able to make more babies and these mothers are likely to be too disorganized, incompetent to act effectively. And they are fatalistic about the future. Utterly disheartened. They want good for their cheldren but are just too messed up to make it happen. They might get their lives together, but while we wait for that, the babies will have more "failures", and on and on, unless somebody changes the script.
I have not a single regret.
A
LOL, yes, I agree 100% with that.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
Bit late in responding here, my apologies if the discussion is expired. Anyway...
No, no, and where the hell did I argue in favor of the state doing any of these things? My post never mentioned monetary costs once; I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.
I was basically arguing two things: 1) providing sex ed and/or birth control, in and of itself, is not infringing on parent's rights or roles, and in fact is the least intrusive method of addressing the state's concern, and 2) the interests of preventing STDs and teenage pregnancies are valid interests to pursue irrespective of morality.
No, no, and where the hell did I argue in favor of the state doing any of these things? My post never mentioned monetary costs once; I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.
I was basically arguing two things: 1) providing sex ed and/or birth control, in and of itself, is not infringing on parent's rights or roles, and in fact is the least intrusive method of addressing the state's concern, and 2) the interests of preventing STDs and teenage pregnancies are valid interests to pursue irrespective of morality.
Speaking as a mother, I'm begging you to tell your cousin's parents about this. A 9 year old who has "tried sex" is likely the victim of molestation, or needs more supervision (at the very least!) I don't think you did anything wrong by explaining what was going on, but if you care about her, PLEASE tell her mom about her "trying sex" and wanting to have a baby. This is very dangerous behavior and not something that your influence is sufficient to stop.
Blade96
Senior Master
yeah i know. very dangerous. I'm afraid her mom will get mad at her though and punish her or something. She doesnt need that me thinks. She neecds to be educated.
I actually have a lot of influence on 9 year old tbh. She calls me her fave cousin and follows me around like that poem 'i have a little shadow that goes in and out with me and what could be the use of him is more than i can see' a few weeks ago i was out to a party at my uncle's house with my bf, Bruce, and she hung around us all night. It is because of this trust and love for me and im her fave and she feels she can talk to me about stuff that I believe she came to me and told me about trying sex and wanting to have a baby because she loves babies. something she never told anybody else. She didnt go to her mum (i dont blame her really knowing my relatives at times) I guess since I know my own relatives, that I dont completely trust her mum to do the right thing. So where does that leave me? I guess i'm in a dilemma here.
Blade -- the more I think about this, the more you have a serious problem here. It is not particularly normal for 9 year olds to "try sex." They may play doctor; given an opportunity they're likely to explore the differences in their bodies. At 9, it's more typical for the girls to chase and torture boys with threats of kisses than anything more. You need to inform the girl's mother -- and if you have such significant concerns about her reaction that you feel you cannot do this -- you need to at least discuss it with someone from Family Services. There's a possibility of abuse or assault -- or simple neglect -- that needs to be addressed.
Question for you: If you or the 9yo were to mention any of this to the parents, what do you honestly think the reaction would be? Does the parents of this 9yo talk to their kid(s) about bc, sex, etc? If you think that the childs parents would be accepting of this, then it may be a good idea to talk to them, with the child. If they wouldn't, then IMO, if you have concerns for the child, then, and I'm sure I'll take some flack for saying this, but someone needs to help this child, and if the help comes in the form of sex ed., then so be it. Seems to me, the child is reaching out for some help, and someone needs to give it to her, be it you, her parents, if they're willing, a doctor, teacher, someone.
