Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Education

Journal pudge's Journal: Sex Ed 60

Journal by pudge

Some people seem to have a problem with me saying no government employees should be able to tell my children about sex, including, but not limited to, sex ed in public schools.

I don't understand how people can say they want the government "out of my bedroom," and then invite the government into their children's bedrooms. I agree the government should not be able to have anything to do with the sex life of private citizens, that laws regarding such are unreasonable. I don't see how this does not extend to our children as well.

It seems entirely perverse to me.

Yes, of course there are health concerns with unprotected sex. Does this justify government intrusion into your own sexual behavior? If not, then why does it justify intrusion into that of your kids?

You may like government telling your kids about the most intimate activity they will ever have. I think no one but my child's parents have the right or responsibility to do so. I know that saying something that is patently obvious to most people is crazy-talk here on Slashdot, but so be it.

Next up: Sally's teacher explains the proper method for kneeling during Sunday mass, so she doesn't get sore calves!

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sex Ed More

Sex Ed

Comments Filter:
  • But it's for the children! Don't you care about the children!?
  • I want everything my kids learn to come from school. I hope they learn about reading 'riting, and 'rithmetic, as well as all of their social behavior. I hope they learn how to treat people, and even yes about sex. School is a fabulous environment to learn about all of these things. Oh, by the way, my wife homeschools. ;)
    • So it is OK for the government to get involved in the sex lives of its citizens. Gotcha.
      • no no I was just joking that the school my kids go to it's ok to learn that, as my wife homeschools. I think it's crap that the governement gets involved. The hypocrisy of it all, "Don't do it don't do it don't do it, here's a box of condoms". Instead of being a gift for married couples to enjoy kind of thing, it becomes a "need a ride to get that abortion done?" kind of thing. The government should butt out.
      • Is it OK for government to get involved in the mathematical lives of its citizens? Does the government have the right to say what kinds of proofs are socially allowable, and what aren't?

        I would say No, but that doesn't mean I'm writing the school board to tell them to drop math. Telling people about how the world objectively works, is not necessarily an intrusion.

        • I think the math example is valid, but there's an even better one that comparitively makes it looks like a lame argument. So forget math.

          Get this: in English class in a public school, the government tells kids what books to read. Is it ok for the government to get directly involved in your kid's mind, and shovel Melville or Dickens down their throats? Literature isn't even objective information -- it actually contains value judgements. Seriously (really, I'm not trolling), that is way more intrusive t

          • Melville sucks, so I do object to Melville. Dickens is ... not great.

            But you act like this is about not letting kids have access to information. It's not. It's not about the information, but who presents it, and how it is presented. Sure, that can be a danger with literature too, but how many people do you know who have been scarred for life based on having read Melville at a young age? I know plenty of people who have been scarred for having virtual strangers introduce them to sexual intercourse.

            May

            • But you act like this is about not letting kids have access to information.

              I'm not sure where you saw that in my above post. FWIW, no, I'm not taking the position that supressing publicly-funded education is about not letting kids have the information. I also don't think that taxpayers neglecting to teach math, is the same as government actively supressing math. If I made any statements that imply government getting out of sex ed is about not letting kids have information, then I must immediate apolog

              • any discussion of public school curriculum does flow from the hypothesis that it is government's job to educate people and they can be trusted to do it

                Not any. I am in favor of public education, but I don't believe for a moment that it is the government's job to educate people, and I don't trust them to do it well or properly. It is the job of parents and the private sector (not necessarily private schools; think apprenticeships) to educate people. The government should be, as always, the last resort f
  • I guess I don't mind sex ed in schools because of a few things:

    I've never heard of or seen anyone having trouble opting out. My kids (and me, many years before) had to have permission slips signed in order to attend. Action was required to attend rather than to sit it out. I would certainly oppose a system like the military having access to private information about high-schoolers where action is necessary to opt out - action that not every parent is aware of. If the only way for a student to attend a
    • I've never heard of or seen anyone having trouble opting out

      I have, although that's beside the point, which is that the government has no business in your kids' bedroom to begin with.

      I also don't care much because personally I've kept communication very open with my kids

      Sure. But this isn't about me or my kids personally, as we have no plans to send them to government schools. (This -- government control -- is a very small part of the reason why, though on its own I may find it sufficient; the real

    • I guess I don't mind sex ed in schools because of a few things: I've never heard of or seen anyone having trouble opting out.

      Sounds like the exact same argument some people use for prayer in public schools.

      • Personal prayer would be one thing. Opting out takes no action because no one is asked to join. Group prayer is another. A teacher or principal telling kids to pray for so many minutes takes action to opt out - a child has to make the choice not to do what an authority figure tells them to. (This also applies to the flag salute, by the way. I was raised to not salute the flag, but that took me, as young as 6, not putting my hand on my heart in a class of thirty kids.)

        • I'm saying that I can easily see someone saying this:

          "Personal sex education would be one thing. Opting out takes no action because no one is asked to join. Group sex education is another. A teacher or principal telling kids to attend sex education class for so many minutes takes action to opt out - a child has to make the choice not to do what an authority figure tells them to."

          The opt-out sex ed classes are just as compulsory as the opt-out group prayers.

          (Note: in case you don't know where I am comi

          • The opt-out sex ed classes are just as compulsory as the opt-out group prayers.

            I agree. If that was what happened with me or my kids, I would be more concerned. As I mentioned, our local procedure is for a permission slip to be sent home advising the parent that sex ed will be part of the class instruction and the dates. The parent then must sign the slip and the child turns it in.

            I think you an I are actually on the same page as to opt-in vs. opt-out. I approve of true opt-in situations - where the
            • I strongly oppose opt-out. It's just saying, "we know what's best for the kids more than their parents do, and what's more, we don't really care what they think anyway." Typical liberal government view.

              I oppose most vaccines too, not for religious reasons though (nor is my opposition to sex ed religion-based). It's simply true that many vaccines are new and not well-tested and can even make problems worse for an individual. For example, it's no doubt true that the flu vaccine helps prevent spread the o

              • who cares what psychological damage might be done by strangers telling our kids intimate details about sexual intercourse?

                Is there any evidence that the dangers outweigh the health benefits from what the victorians might have called hygene lessons, and you call sex ed?

                At least they don't get diseases or pregnancies!

                Do you think that children in communties without public "family living" education (that's what they called in when I was in fifth grade) have more or fewer unwanted pregnancies and

                • Is there any evidence that the dangers outweigh the health benefits from ... sex ed?

                  I've never seen anyone do any study on this, so I'd think not. My main complaint is not that those dangers are greater, but that they are not even *considered* by proponents of sex ed.

                  Do you think that children in communties without [sex ed] have more or fewer unwanted pregnancies and STDs than those who do not have such education, or have opt-in?

                  Do you think that there were less STDs and unwanted pregnancies back whe
                  • Does a description of how to put on a condom appeal to the purient interest?

                    How would the police be expected to treat an adult who some child claims told a dirty joke that appealed to the purient interest, was patently offensive by community standards, and had no merit in the opinion of the parent?

                    My main complaint is not that those dangers are greater, but that they are not even *considered* by proponents of sex ed.

                    They are. [advocatesforyouth.org] Apparently people get paid to design effective cirricula: "Europeans

                    • Does a description of how to put on a condom appeal to the purient interest?

                      To high school kids? Of course it does.

                      They are.

                      Then why don't you quote something that describes the study of those dangers?

                      Maybe you didn't read back far enough to know what "those dangers" refers to?
                    • When I was in high school, there were plenty of things that appealed to my purient interest, but condoms were not one of them. Condoms are sadly the exception rather than the rule in purient movies, or so I read from the activists who wish to make all pr0n have only condom-clad male actors in it.

                      why don't you quote something that describes the study of those dangers?

                      I think I know what you are referring to, from the .pdf link above, in "Criteria for Selecting Supplemental Sexuality Education Material

                    • Those are the kinds of problems that I think you were referring to.

                      You're incorrect. I was referring to a study on the long-term psychological effects of virtual strangers teaching children about sexual intercourse. I see no evidence of such a study in what you linked to or quoted.
                    • I was referring to a study on the long-term psychological effects of virtual strangers teaching children about sexual intercourse.
                      What was the diagnosis?
                    • What were the long-term psychological effects?

                      When you consider that teachers have to structure the class so it won't cause further psychological harm in rape victims, I can't see how you can claim that they aren't being sensitive to the average kid.

                    • What were the long-term psychological effects?

                      Why are you asking me? I already said I've never seen a study on that done. That's what I meant when I said such things are not even considered. No one is trying to find this out.

                      I can't see how you can claim that they aren't being sensitive to the average kid.

                      I don't care about the average kid. I care about each individual kid.
                    • Since unwanted pregnancies and STDs are on average reduced, the programs can be truthfully said to be in strong support of the long-term psychological well-being of each individual kid.

                      If you deny that, then you imply that they good of the few outweighs the good of the many. Perhaps that kind of an idea is more appropriate for private education?

                    • Since unwanted pregnancies and STDs are on average reduced, the programs can be truthfully said to be in strong support of the long-term psychological well-being of each individual kid. If you deny that ...

                      If I deny your fallacious argument? I do deny it, absolutely. You're changing from my truthful contention that the long-term psychological effects have not been properly studied, and saying that the programs "care" about those effects, so it's all OK, even without proper study.

                      That's utter nonsense.
                    • I agree that requiring a positive outcome for each individual is a worthy goal by itself. But, as the number of individuals increases, the probability of devising a technique capable of such an outcome goes to zero.

                      So, if when N=1000 a technique that costs $X provides an agerage outcome measured on some scale of preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs (and therefore correlating with long-term mental health) of +1, but for one individual has an outcome of -0.1, then how much more than $X is it appropriat

                    • I agree that requiring a positive outcome for each individual is a worthy goal by itself. But, as the number of individuals increases, the probability of devising a technique capable of such an outcome goes to zero.

                      No, it doesn't. It approaches, but does not reach, zero.

                      However, you're only helping to make the argument that you should not have a sex ed program at all.

                      I am not arguing with your idealism, except for the fact that it precludes practical solutions.

                      It is not idealism. And the practical
                    • Fair enough. I'm getting the feeling that this is a half-empty/half-full situation. There are those of us who feel we should try to make a difference, even if it only helps a single person, and there are those of us who feel we should not unless it will not harm a single person.

                      Would you want traffic laws designed at the expense of making sure that nobody was ever wrongly convicted at the expense of a greater number of fatalities?

                      I can not believe that you would want to design sex education so that i

  • Some people seem to have a problem with me saying no government employees should be able to tell my children about sex

    I don't think that is what people are objecting to. I think the objections I've seen raised are with this: [slashdot.org]

    should be able to have any adult who tells my children about sex arrested on corruption of a minor charges. This is just incredible that we say "teachers" are allowed to do this without explicit parental permission, but other adults are not. That is, literally, insane.

    This doe

    • This does seem a bit out there to me.

      That's odd, since it is not substantially different from what you said you didn't have a problem with.

      1. Assuming that if your hypothetical underage daughter ever showed up in a public emergency room with an acute ectopic pregnancy (just to pick something I saw on E.R. the other night), and you were unable to be reached for some reason, then what should the doctor be allowed to say?

      If there is a serious physical reason to act immediately, then yes, of course. Noth
      • Your earlier comment was about "any adult" but you said here that "government employees" shouldn't be allowed to tell children about sex. I assume that you still mean the more wide-ranging former.

        Where I live, kids can get library cards without their parents permission, and it appears to be that way in Seattle (where you live?), too. But it doesn't matter whether they have a card -- they can still get to all of the sections in the library.

        Do you think that the books with information about sex should

        • Your earlier comment was about "any adult" but you said here that "government employees" shouldn't be allowed to tell children about sex. I assume that you still mean the more wide-ranging former.

          Of course.

          What, you want random adults walking down the street telling your preteen kids how to put a condom on? How can anyone think this is a good thing?

          Where I live, kids can get library cards without their parents permission, and it appears to be that way in Seattle (where you live?), too. But it doesn't

          • What, you want random adults walking down the street telling your preteen kids how to put a condom on?

            It's not that I want that so much as that I don't want what would happen to our justice system if that was made illegal.

            By the way, you claimed to never answer questions about what kind of penalty there should be, after already saying jail was the appropriate punnishment.

            Why is jail more appropriate than a fine?

            children without parental permission get restricted to the childrens' section, whic

            • Do you think that teaching scientific information about sex if dangerous because chromosome mutation rate is used as an argument against the historical timeline presented in the Book of Genesis?

              No, he doesn't. And the fact that you would even ask such a question means you are ignoring pudge's stated reasons for his position and casting a broad net looking for some wacko secret reason behind it. How can you expect to even have an intelligent conversation if you will not accept what he says at face valu

            • It's not that I want that so much as that I don't want what would happen to our justice system if that was made illegal.

              Such as?

              By the way, you claimed to never answer questions about what kind of penalty there should be, after already saying jail was the appropriate punnishment.

              Not really, no. "jail" was convenient shorthand to imply that it should be a criminal offense.

              So, you believe that children should not be allowed in any section of the library containing books with explicit information abou

  • Well you can't get very far in biology class without mentioning sex.

    The problem here is the compulsary eduction system. As long as the state is teaching the children, the state will be the ones deciding what they are taught, how they are taught it, and what they are kept ignorant of.

    If you think parents should be the ones in charge of their children's education, then eliminate the compulsary education system altogether.

    So much political discourse (discord) is the result of disagrement over how the go

    • Well you can't get very far in biology class without mentioning sex.

      This goes back to the fact that some people can't tell the difference between breastfeeding in public, and simply going topless.

      • some people can't tell the difference between breastfeeding in public, and simply going topless.

        And what is the difference? Should the law take into account the intention of an exposed breast?

        • Do people take into account the difference? Of course they do. The question is, then, why SHOULDN'T the law take into account the difference?

          We don't ban nudity in certain cases because there is something wrong with nudity. We ban it, obviously, because of how it affects people. And therefore how it affects people is important in determining the law regarding it.

          It's not illegal to show full frontal nudity on broadcast TV; for example, Schindler's List was shown uncut on network TV. Most people don't

          • why SHOULDN'T the law take into account the difference?

            Because the law should be as clear, easy to understand, and unambiguous as possible.

            We ban it, obviously, because of how it affects people

            If bare ankles affected people the same way bare nipples did, would you support banning that too?

            • Because the law should be as clear, easy to understand, and unambiguous as possible.

              You appear to be implying that the difference between breastfeeding boobs and non-breastfeeding boobs is unclear, hard to understand, and ambiguous.

              If bare ankles affected people the same way bare nipples did, would you support banning that too?

              That's an impossible question to answer. If our penises were our feet, would we require them to always be covered? Maybe, maybe not. Who can tell?

              • How do you make the distinction? Should only lactating breasts be allowed to be exposed? Should only they only be allowed to be exposed for the purpose of breastfeeding? When you see a breast, how do you measure the intent behind it's exposure? Is it sufficient for the child to be nearby or must it be given the nipple immediately? How immediately is sufficient, one second? Five seconds? Ten? Can you charge the women with indecent exposure if she doddles? What about if she stops to answer her phone?

                • Their justification is the same as yours, seeing female skin affects people in ways that are undesireable and to be avoided.

                  Did pudge say that was his justification?

                • There is a lot of ambiguity there.

                  Only in your mind. There really is no ambiguity at all, of any kind, whatsoever.

                  The Taliban had (have) strict laws against exposure of female skin. Their justification is the same as yours.

                  The Nazis wanted universal health care. Their justification was the same as Hillary Clinton's.

                  • There really is no ambiguity at all, of any kind, whatsoever.

                    Then I must have misunderstood your position entirely. Could you clarify?

                    Under what circumstances should exposing a nipple be a crime? How should the law be written to make those situations and only those situations criminal? And how do you justify the additional limitations of people's freedom?

                    • Then I must have misunderstood your position entirely. Could you clarify?

                      Exposure of a breast for breastfeeding is obviously distinct from exposure of a breast for other reasons. I really can't see how this could possibly be more clear.

                      And how do you justify the additional limitations of people's freedom?

                      Additional to what? Current law, in most places, is what I've described. I am not saying there should be any new laws.

                    • Exposure of a breast for breastfeeding is obviously distinct from exposure of a breast for other reasons.

                      So if I were to show you a picture of an exposed breast, you could tell me why it was exposed? How do you do that? Are you psychic?

                      Additional to what?

                      Additional limitations than there would be in the absence of these laws.

                    • So if I were to show you a picture of an exposed breast, you could tell me why it was exposed? How do you do that? Are you psychic?

                      You act like this is a fundamental problem. Much of our law is based on intent. It's really not a problem.

                      Additional limitations than there would be in the absence of these laws.

                      Ah. So by additional, you don't actually mean additional.

                    • This is a fundamental problem.

                      1. There is no way to objectively measure intent. Therefore there is no way to objectively enforce the law. Enforcement of the law will be as biased as the enforcers.
                      2. This makes for a class of thought crimes. People are not punished for what they do, but for how they think.
                      If your goal is a free society, yeah, that is a fundamental problem.

                      And why? What is the benefit?

                    • This is a fundamental problem.

                      No, it isn't.

                      There is no way to objectively measure intent. Therefore there is no way to objectively enforce the law. Enforcement of the law will be as biased as the enforcers.

                      That's the way almost all laws have always been enforced.

                      This makes for a class of thought crimes. People are not punished for what they do, but for how they think.

                      This has always been the case. Where have you been? It's the difference between murder and manslaughter (or even between degrees o

                    • My point is that's not the way it should be. "That's the way it is," is not an effective rebuttal.

                    • My point is that's not the way it should be. "That's the way it is," is not an effective rebuttal.

                      I was rebutting your use of the word "additional," and since it is not additional, it is a perfectly effective rebuttal.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be coming up it." -- Henry Allen

Close