Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Education

Journal pudge's Journal: Sex Education 137

Journal by pudge

I wrote this to a local TV station who had people arguing about which kind of sex education to teach in our schools. I did agree more with the abstinence side -- especially when the abstinence advocate asked the other to define abstinence, and she said "it's a choice some people make," refusing further clarification -- but my view is a bit different.

=====================

I wish your program had devoted some time to the notion that public school is not the place to teach *anything* about personal sexual activity, be it abstinence or not. It's not the information I have a problem with, it's the source.

Anyone who isn't family will not teach my children about sex, period. That's my job. And my children will surely know a lot more about sex, in a comprehensive and healthy way, than children who learn about it via a combination of MTV and the public schools.

Yes, many parents won't be such good teachers. I personally don't see this as a problem for the schools to take on, but if they must, then the class should be optional, and not the default option.

Further, so much time and money and energy is spent on deciding which type of sexual information to give to impressionable teenagers, instead of addressing the fact that -- compared to 30 years ago -- today's high school graduates are, overall, pretty ignorant. They don't know the difference between Andrew Johnson and Andrew Jackson, and couldn't even begin to tell you what a gerund is.

But some people decided that sex is more important than being well-educated. Perhaps if the children were more well-educated, they would be smart enough to figure things out on their own a bit better? Teach them history, teach them to figure out why things happened, why people did what they did, and what other choices they could have made. Pretty soon you'll get kids who are actually thinking for themselves.

But we can't have that, because government schools are designed to create programmed citizens who will do what is best for society. That's why there's so much emphasis on rates of sexual activity, pregnancies, and diseases. But I am raising intelligent, creative, confident, and capable individuals. Statistics are irrelevant to the parent; what matters is the individual. I am far less concerned with statistics than I am about my own individuals, including the psychological impact of strangers giving them intimate information about sex.

I am no anti-government wacko (believe it, or not). But in the case of public schools, there can be no denying that they are not designed with the best interests of the individual children in mind, but with society in mind. And that's not good enough for my children, and the current debate about which form of sex education to teach is a perfect example of why.

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

Sex Education More

Sex Education

Comments Filter:
  • I haven't given this subject much thought before but find myself largely agreeing with your philosophy (schools *should not* have to teach this) but doubt the effects in reality would be pretty.

    I wanted to say something long, drawn out, intelligent-sounding, but it basically comes down to this: If removing sex education results in a quantifiable, significant increase in ignorant sexual behaviour, is following the philosophy the right thing to do?

    Quick defintion of "Quanitifiable, significant increase in i
    • I wanted to say something long, drawn out, intelligent-sounding, but it basically comes down to this: If removing sex education results in a quantifiable, significant increase in ignorant sexual behaviour, is following the philosophy the right thing to do?

      That's a huge "if," and from my understanding of these things, I don't think it is even possible to show that a quantifiable change is the result of removing sex education. There are too many other factors that would make such a conclusion impossible, I
      • In theory, *a* paid professional could give better information than I. But information is only part of the point. We're trying to teach about sex in some sort of moral vacuum, which is a ridiculous notion. Without context about what sex is, its purpose and place in the individual's life, the psychological and moral and religious implications, that information is meaningless at best, and harmful at worst.

        In high school I learned about what happens when someone starves to death. I learned some staggering s
        • Just the facts of sex can be taught in a vacuum just fine.

          No, they can't.

          Kids should know about it because the consequences of not knowing are bad for them and society.

          And potentially bad for the individual students. I couldn't care less about society, if in the process my child is getting hurt.

          It should be up to parents to teach their kids context for sex ed to fit into.

          If the parents are providing this context, then there is no need for the government to teach it in the first place.

          You sure a
          • No, they can't.

            Then neither can history. If a kid asks a teacher why slavery was abolished and wants to know why people felt it was bad, what should the teacher say? Can't teach economics because a kid might ask why do so many people go hungry. Can't read any challenging books in english because some parents think murder is okay. Do you want a kid asking the teacher "why is murder wrong?"

            Schools teach kids many values even in seemingly non-controversial subjects like history, economics, and English.
            • If a kid asks a teacher why slavery was abolished and wants to know why people felt it was bad, what should the teacher say?

              Not much, except to assert that it is bad. Which is a big reason why public schools suck. Find me a public school teacher who gives a really good answer as to why slavery is bad, and I'll show you a waitress who can calculate tip and tax in her head, because all answers either reference religious beliefs, or are circular arguments about natural order. The latter is not a really go

              • The threat of unwanted pregnancy and disease are just so relatively irrelevant in terms of the impact of sex and one's life. However you look at it, small numbers of people will encounter those problems, but everyone who has sex will have to deal with the psychological impact of sex.

                Pretty much everyone who has premarital sex, for example, compares their current mates to past ones, and this has a detrimental impact on those relationships, in a many cases. That effect may be slight (perhaps spending too

                • I wish you had brought this out more in your original journal entry

                  I don't want this to become the point of the discussion. I added it grudgingly here because I came to realize many people really didn't get it, that there are other considerations. I should have though, since my point is that those considerations are being ignored. :-)
              • Pretty much everyone who has premarital sex, for example, compares their current mates to past ones, and this has a detrimental impact on those relationships, in a many cases. That effect may be slight (perhaps spending too much time focusing on past love instead of the present) or severe (interjecting feelings of jealousy and resentment that split the relationship), but the point is that it is there and it is ignored. I don't mention this as a main point (though perhaps I could make it one if I wished); it

        • Kids should know about it because the consequences of not knowing are bad for them and society.

          The argument that something should be done because to do otherwise is bad "for society" is subjective and untenable. I think it's "bad for society" if people don't go to church every Sunday ... does that give me a right to impose my will on people? Because opinions about what is "good for society" and "bad for society" are so subjective and can differ wildly, we should construct our government in such a way

    • If removing sex education results in a quantifiable, significant increase in ignorant sexual behaviour, is following the philosophy the right thing to do?

      Very interesting question, and well worth considering. If that action did have that result, I certainly would question the philosophy.

      Let me rephrase the question to make it even more interesting: suppose removing this education resulted in a quantifiable increase in this ignorant behavior in the short term, but in the long term resulted in a quanti

  • What is the sex ed curriculum where you are? What I had was educational, and presented professionally, and not in any way I would call "inducing" to sexual activity. I just don't see how telling kids how sex happens, and how to prevent pregnancy, is going to get them to do it. Kids mess around with firecrackers even if their parents tell them its dangerous. Better to teach them about safety.

    We don't allow public schools to teach religion, or political ideologies, yet they still teach values. I learned
    • What I had was educational, and presented professionally, and not in any way I would call "inducing" to sexual activity.

      I am not sure why you bring this up, as I didn't refer to "inducement."

      People still have the right to homeschool their kids, but if they aren't going to, I want these kids knowing somethings about how the world works and that includes sex.

      No offense, but I don't really care what you want. This is about what should be done, not what people want to be done.

      What are the psychological
      • I am not sure why you bring this up, as I didn't refer to "inducement."

        Maybe it occured to you that a common argument against sex ed is that kids will have sex because now they know. Just thought I'd weigh in should that come up.

        No offense, but I don't really care what you want. This is about what should be done, not what people want to be done.

        The whole reason I brought up the books and classes I took was to point out children are tought things in school besides the three R's. What makes sex ed dif
        • Maybe it occured to you that a common argument ...

          Maybe it occurred to you that I am uninterested in arguments directed toward me against arguments I am not making.

          The whole reason I brought up the books and classes I took was to point out children are tought things in school besides the three R's. What makes sex ed different than learning how racism is wrong, or how our economy works?

          Because racism has been one of the most important forces in our nation's history, and the economy actually can be adeq
          • I'll turn the tables: if we should teach sex, why not religion? And don't simply point to the First Amendment; ignore that and tell me why it's a bad idea.

            I don't think it's a bad idea, and I'll tell you why.

            Teach kids religion, but start with spirtuality in general. The feelings of being connected, either to oneself, or something greater. Those spirtual underlie religion. Then teach how and why 12.43% [cia.gov] of the world is non-religious. Then teach Buddhism because it doesn't involve God(s). God(s) are a
            • I don't think it's a bad idea, and I'll tell you why.

              You're in an extreme minority. You think most parents want some damned atheist/Mormon/Christian/Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/etc. teaching their kids about religion?

              I used to go to a Reform Judaism temple. I went to a retreat with kids from many other Reform temples. We spent a day learning about the other forms of Judaism. Conservative, Orthodox, Humanistic, Reconstructionist, and Hasidic. It was quite educational, informative, and eye-opening, to learn the
              • You think most parents want some damned atheist/Mormon/Christian/Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/etc. teaching their kids about religion?

                It's too bad they aren't more confident in the strength of their faith. Of course it is a fair argument that the "dark side" is incredibly seductive. It might pull the children over before they've been properly converted/indoctrinated to the parents' beliefs.

                And you were introduced to those things within a given trusted context, which is obviously dissimilar from how it would be
                • It's too bad they aren't more confident in the strength of their faith. Of course it is a fair argument that the "dark side" is incredibly seductive. It might pull the children over before they've been properly converted/indoctrinated to the parents' beliefs.

                  You are not addressing any meaning I had, so I have no response except, "OK there, buddy".

                  If they were taught religion in a vacuum then it would be up to the parents to talk to their kids about what they've been learning and give context, which is e

                • It might pull the children over before they've been properly converted/indoctrinated to the parents' beliefs.

                  I do have to say that I believe anyone who has a problem with any particular belief or group of beliefs taught to children has a moral obligation to support adult education efforts aimed at people raised with those beliefs, in order to help them cope and, if necessary, escape. But if it is legal to hold the belief in our society, then it is legal to expect to be allowed to teach one's children t

              • It does not follow from this that they should be taught about it in public school.

                But public education != secular education. I don't have a problem with a comparative religion class being taught in a public school - nor should anyone -- in a broader context it's world history. How can you teach about "Western Civilization" without bringing up the effect that Christianity had on it. My public school didn't play games and pretend that the world was not shaped by religion - nor should any public school.

                • But Bobbie and Susie's parents may not have the time or parenting skills to do so, so they end up having unprotected sex and spreading disease and/or having unwanted pregnancies

                  And they may be more likely to engage in dangerous sex if they are taught about sex in school.

                  You're playing with the well-being of someone else's children in the hope that overall, you can improve certain statistics, which clearly don't even tell the whole picture.

                  Is it in the best interest of the public at large when some, per
                  • And they may be more likely to engage in dangerous sex if they are taught about sex in school.

                    And they may be more likely to avoid dangerous sex if they had any clue about what is dangerous and what isn't. Why draw the education line at sex? If students are being taught about every other aspect of health and well-being why draw the line at health? Why is it that we require more hours of education to drive a car than to discuss the impacts of having sex?

                    You're playing with the well-being of someone e

                    • And they may be more likely to avoid dangerous sex if they had any clue about what is dangerous and what isn't.

                      I am not contesting that. I am contesting that we should be engaging in social engineering, especially considering we do not have nearly a complete picture about the effects it will have.

                      Why draw the education line at sex?

                      I have already wrote at length in this discussion about what makes sex unique in this regard.

                      Why is it that we require more hours of education to drive a car than to disc
                    • I have already wrote at length in this discussion about what makes sex unique in this regard.

                      Sorry, haven't through all of the posts.

                      Please understand: I am stating as a given that no studies give a complete picture.

                      But you don't want to waste the money to study it either ;-) Seriously, I don't think it's wise to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because we don't have a complete picture of the impacts of the current systems (and there are many in use throughout the country) doesn't m

                    • I don't think it's wise to throw the baby out with the bath water.

                      That's begging the questions, since my argument is precisely that we are not throwing out anything worthwhile.

                      doesn't mean we drop what we have in favor of nothing

                      Actually, it does. If we can't be sure we're doing the right thing, then we should do nothing. Social engineering is a dangerous business. Don't touch it.

                      If you don't want your kids in a sex-ed class, call their school and opt them out of it.

                      I shouldn't have to. I shou
                    • my argument is precisely that we are not throwing out anything worthwhile.

                      But your argument is that public sex ed is not worthwhile and hence it should be thrown out. I don't see enough evidence that it's not worthwhile.

                      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.

                      And doctors, clergy, etc... There are plenty of professions where it's appropriate. And it's not all teachers - it's some

                    • But your argument is that public sex ed is not worthwhile and hence it should be thrown out.

                      No, it is not.

                      And doctors, clergy, etc... There are plenty of professions where it's appropriate.

                      Only with *explicit* permission from the parents.

                      No, you're just arguing for an absence of public education - but not providing the means for the whole public to educate their children themselves.

                      The "means" for someone to teach their own kids about sex?

                      Are you serious?

                    • but not providing the means for the whole public to educate their children themselves

                      What do you think the public library is for (assuming parents don't know enough about sex to educate the child they created with the process).

                    • What do you think the public library is for (assuming parents don't know enough about sex to educate the child they created with the process).

                      Ah... the public library. A place that's funded by public money and carries books about sex - are you sure you don't want to take the books out of the library too? But seriously - I'm not talking about middle class families with decent jobs and education - I'm talking about poor folks. Women in poverty having children at age 15. If a mother wasn't taught by her

                    • So Pudge, when are you going to have that 'little chat' with your childrens? When they're 5? 15? 35?

                      The reason why real Sex Ed (not the watered down crap they ladle out in schools) is important is so that people like you don't become grandparents prematurely. If parents are not willing to take responsibility (and we can get into the discussion of the definition of 'unfit' later), then someone else has to do it. It is essential for society that people who are not ready to have children are educated on the t

                    • Only with *explicit* permission from the parents.

                      Not in all cirumstances, but I get what you're saying. As I recall, in my school parents were informed specifically of when sex ed would be taught as part of the broader health class, and given the option to opt their child out of class. That seems permission based to me. Besides that, all of the talk about sex is done in very clinical terms - you'd get descriptions as or more graphic on the discovery channel.

            • I think it's important that the people of the world know a little bit about other religions, or at least enough to accept them and not be bigoted.

              Man, I couldn't agree more! In the past year I have done detailed study on Orthodox Judaism, B'nai Noach, Catholicism, the "International Church of Christ" (also known as the Boston Church of Christ), and quite a bit of minor study on other groups (you failed to mention Karaite Judaism, which interested me greatly). And my then-fiance now-wife talked a great

              • I am thankful that I will be homeschooling my children so I can expose them to far more study of comparative religion than I received in public school. We'll have plenty of extra time since we won't be doing the make-work projects I had to do.

                Yeah, so many people associate homeschooling with restrictive access to information. With the people I know, it's precisely the opposite. My #1 reason for homeschooling is, far and away, to provide MORE opportunity to learn, not less, and about every subject. The

                • My #1 reason for homeschooling is, far and away, to provide MORE opportunity to learn, not less, and about every subject. The #2 reason, again far and away, is that we can teach those things in what we believe is the proper context.

                  Same here. I also have as a major reason that it is an exercise of my civil liberties, and I believe that by the mere act of exercising this right I help keep the right safe for others and thereby benefit society.

                  Crazy stuff like Maryland schools refusing to allow the men

                • BTW, and I hope I'm not going too far off topic, my wife and I were discussing Internet access for our children the other day, and for anyone looking in who thinks homeschoolers and religious people are all about censoring and restricting access, we are agreed NOT to spend any time dealing with filtering software for our internet connection. (And given that my wife was exclusively homeschooled, you'd think she'd be all about getting filtering, if it were true that homeschoolers are that way.) We are proba

                  • We might use filtering software, just as a helper, but it would only be if I can have full access to (and better, control over) what is blocked, and more importantly, that I can override it.

                    Because let's face it, sometimes porn just happens when you aren't looking for it. Like, I was researching some hacker tools for reading IP packets and the site had explicit porn ads all over it. So any blocking software would just be an aid. I fully agree about putting the computer in a public room.
  • come High School when this is a mandatory you won't be able to get your kids out of the class without embarassing them to tears. And it is likely the school will fight in ways that will be wholly unfair. You'll get threatened with no HS Degree, yadda yadda. Nice bunch those educators.

    • you won't be able to get your kids out of the class without embarassing them to tears

      Which is why pudge says it should be opt-in, not opt-out. (I believe his actual wording was "this should not be the default.")

      come High School when this is a mandatory

      Mandatory according to whom? Do you have the impression there is a federal mandate that there be sex education in high school? I had no sex education in high school at all (unless you count overhearing raunchy talk on the part of my peers); that

      • Couldn't possibly agree more. Way back when I had to take "Health". It was not optional. Kids that managed to get out of it were labled (likely by their peers but there was a thought the teachers originating the slur) "Jesus Freaks". That was 1983ish.

        I like this fantasy Government you live under where WE get to decide things.
  • But could someone tell me what's wrong with telling kids, "Here's how pregnancy occurs", "You can get pregnant your first time", and "Pulling out quickly isn't effective"?

    Is the idea that if kids know these things, they'll have more sex, or what?

    • Did you read the part where pudge said, "It's not the information I have a problem with, it's the source"?

    • But could someone tell me what's wrong with telling kids, "Here's how pregnancy occurs", "You can get pregnant your first time", and "Pulling out quickly isn't effective"?

      Please read the very first paragraph of my letter again. It's not the information I have a problem with, it's the source.

      How would you like it if I came to your door, rang the bell, and your little 12-year-old girl answered, and I told her that she should have her partner wear a condom when he inserts his penis into her vagina? I woul
      • You do that, and I'd hope she'd tell you, "Duh."

        My daughter's not at that stage yet, and deep in my black heart I wish her to remain a virgin until she's 30, but since I know the chances of that happening are nil, I want her to know as much as she can from multiple sources.

        Now, I may not agree with everything that she gets taught in school, but I'm here to give her my perspective on things, which she can compare and contrast to what she's been taught. This lets her, you know, make her own decisions, an

        • deep in my black heart I wish her to remain a virgin until she's 30

          Suddenly it seems you're the one with the repressive feelings about sexuality. I can't understand that at all. And while I do not have a daughter (though a son is on the way, at 7 months gestation), my wife said she never got a message like that from her father, either.

          My wife and I lost our virginity last year, on March 12, when we got married. I was 26, and she was 22. Our parents certainly never pressured us, but they did desire

          • Suddenly it seems you're the one with the repressive feelings about sexuality. I can't understand that at all. And while I do not have a daughter (though a son is on the way, at 7 months gestation), my wife said she never got a message like that from her father, either.

            It's a message I hope she never picks up from me. It's incredibly selfish, I readily admit. But it's there. "Repressive" would be denying it's existence, not admitting it.

            • It sounds like you want to repress her. Don't you understand that I have trouble accepting statements about how children should be educated sexually from a man who apparently feels, deep down, that sex is a "dirty" thing that must be kept away from his children?

              I notice your original question was, "Is the idea that if kids know these things, they'll have more sex, or what?" (Which, incidentally, completely missed the point that pudge's problem is with kids learning these things from the government rather

              • It sounds like you want to repress her. Don't you understand that I have trouble accepting statements about how children should be educated sexually from a man who apparently feels, deep down, that sex is a "dirty" thing that must be kept away from his children?

                Interesting viewpoint, since the thrust of your's and Pudge's posts seems to be that sex should not be taught by anyone but the parents because it can cause moral and ethical problems.

                (Which, incidentally, completely missed the point that pudg
                • Interesting viewpoint, since the thrust of your's and Pudge's posts seems to be that sex should not be taught by anyone but the parents because it can cause moral and ethical problems.

                  How does this logically follow as different from what else was said? Sex is not itself bad, but it can be extremely dangerous, both physically and psychologically; everyone knows this. Therefore, there is significant danger if it is not taught properly. And what is "proper" is different for everyone.
                  • How does this logically follow as different from what else was said? Sex is not itself bad, but it can be extremely dangerous, both physically and psychologically; everyone knows this. Therefore, there is significant danger if it is not taught properly. And what is "proper" is different for everyone.

                    What keeps you from teaching your children? It's not an either-or situation, here; school can teach those "duh" things that everyone agrees on, and then you can correct or expound on what you wish. Yes?

                • No, I'm just trying to figure out why in the world you don't want your daughter to have sex until she is 30.

        • You do that, and I'd hope she'd tell you, "Duh."

          At 12 years old? I know I'd shoot someone who did that to my daughter.

          My daughter's not at that stage yet, and deep in my black heart I wish her to remain a virgin until she's 30

          I don't wish that for my children at all.

          but since I know the chances of that happening are nil

          Again, this is not about the information, and not about what she does.

          That said, not 30, but I was a virgin until I was 21. So was my wife. *shrug*

          Now, I may not agree with ev

          • At 12 years old? I know I'd shoot someone who did that to my daughter.

            Yes, but because of the source, not because of the information. I think he still missed that. Instead of his daughter saying, "Duh," she should go call the police because a strange man is talking about sex to her!

            Err, not that you're strange. But if you ever knock on my door and want to talk to any of my children about this, I'll change my mind.

            That said, not 30, but I was a virgin until I was 21. So was my wife. *shrug*

            I'm

          • At 12 years old? I know I'd shoot someone who did that to my daughter.

            Fascinating. Why? Would you shoot someone who told your daughter "Look both ways before you cross the street" or "Don't take candy from strangers"?

            By whom? Some stranger on the street?

            Straw man. Obviously, any stranger who takes too great of an interest in our children -- god forbid it's a 35-ish year old white male who's alone -- has to be watched like a hawk, but that's for reasons completely unrelated to the content of the

            • that's for reasons completely unrelated to the content of the message

              And I ask again, did you miss the part where pudge said, "It's not the information I have a problem with, it's the source"? He's explicitly stated from the beginning that this is NOT about the content of the message.

            • Fascinating. Why?

              You don't understand? Fascinating.

              Straw man.

              Not remotely.

              Obviously, any stranger who takes too great of an interest in our children -- god forbid it's a 35-ish year old white male who's alone -- has to be watched like a hawk, but that's for reasons completely unrelated to the content of the message. Try replacing "stranger on the street" with "mass distributed pamphlet in the mail".

              A teacher in a classroom of less than 30 students is far more intimate than a pamphlet. And if suc
              • You don't understand? Fascinating.

                Since you already stated that "it's not the message, but the source", I am actually really curious. If your response is to brush it aside, then I believe our conversation is over.

                A teacher in a classroom of less than 30 students is far more intimate than a pamphlet. And if such a pamphlet were intentionally addressed to my child through the mail, I would have the culprits arrested.

                Would you have anyone who told your child facts arrested, or is this only relating to
                • Since you already stated that "it's not the message, but the source", I am actually really curious. If your response is to brush it aside, then I believe our conversation is over.

                  I did not brush it aside. It's important. But it's not something I can teach you, especially since you want your child to not have sex until she's 30, and yet you have no problem with a stranger telling her about it. That just makes no sense, and I don't know how I could possibly explain it to you given your conflicts.

                  Who say
                  • I did not brush it aside. It's important. But it's not something I can teach you, especially since you want your child to not have sex until she's 30, and yet you have no problem with a stranger telling her about it. That just makes no sense, and I don't know how I could possibly explain it to you given your conflicts.

                    I also want a million dollars. Doesn't mean I'm going to knock over 7-11s or start a spam company. I can only assume that you've had sinful thoughts yourself; what's too hard to understan
                    • I can only assume that you've had sinful thoughts yourself

                      What sinful thoughts did you have that you're referring to? I don't get it.

                      you're saying that you'd prefer they (that is, the school) teach absolutely nothing at all on the issue, rather than teach something that's inadequate?

                      In the case of sex, yes.

                      Given that public schooling as we know it exists, do you think these topics (death penalty, war, etc) should be taught in schools?

                      If schools are to be as they are now, which is the default for
                    • What sinful thoughts did you have that you're referring to? I don't get it.

                      In reference to my wanting my daughter to be a virgin till she's 30. It's selfish on my part; a desire for her to be my child forever instead of letting her grow into an adult.

                      In the case of sex, yes.

                      Why do you say "in the case of sex"? What makes sense different from other subject matter. You've stated already that there are conflicting viewpoints on sex, but that doesn't address items that (almost) everyone can agree o
                    • What makes sense different from other subject matter.

                      I think you meant "sex" not "sense," and I have already written to you at considerable length about what makes sex different. If you are going to pretend I did not, then I won't bother any longer.

                      What's being taught in sex ed now that's being taught that you object to?

                      Again, for the umpteenth time, it is the source, not the information.

                      Are you against the War on Terror, too?

                      Why would I be? You seem to be implying one of three things: that terr
                    • I think you meant "sex" not "sense," and I have already written to you at considerable length about what makes sex different. If you are going to pretend I did not, then I won't bother any longer.

                      I looked back through, just to see if I missed something. I see that sex cannot be taught seperate from its "emotional, psychological, and moral contexts". And that society has differing viewpoints on sex. But in regards to the second point, you agree that there are some sex concepts that are pretty universal
                    • you agree that there are some sex concepts that are pretty universal, yet you state that you would prefer that no concepts be taught at all, including those that are universal

                      Yes, because it's like telling a soldier they just need to follow orders and then sending them off to war.

                      But what's the matter with the source if it's something universally accepted?

                      Whether it is universally accepted is beside the point. It's just as universally accepted that Nazis killed millions of Jews (at least in this part
                    • Well, Pudge, it's been nice talking to you. Have a good day.
          • What if, without your knowledge, your 12 year-old daughter thinks she's in love with a 14 year-old boy and has been going over to see him when you think she's at "Becky"'s house? What if he's been pressuring your daughter into touching him down there because he loves her and if she loved him she'd do that? What if he pressures her into having sex, and he doesn't wear a condom?
  • Is it really true that 30 years ago people were being taught more about sex? I'm trying to wrap my head around this, especially the part how such information is quantized by any given person, who has their own belief system, and thusly their own unique perception/interpretation toward any type of information. So the statistics are always interesting to me, or rather it is interesting to me how statistics are interesting to other people. Am I splitting hairs here?

    A friend of mine got herself educated in ter
    • Is it really true that 30 years ago people were being taught more about sex?

      I don't think so. I think you misread. I said students today were pretty ignorant relative to 30 years ago, and I qualified that by bringing up points of history and grammar, implying I was referring to overall learning, not sex education.

      I guess what I'm getting at is who is to say what is right or wrong in respect to sexual education when modern society is already so far removed from what some scholars see as normal.

      That's
  • I disagree on this spot in particular:
    Yes, many parents won't be such good teachers. I personally don't see this as a problem for the schools to take on, but if they must, then the class should be optional, and not the default option
    It SHOULD be the default option -- because parents who are apathetic in this regard are likewise to be apathetic to sign them up. Parents who ARE involved with their children will be more likely to opt out of such a program.

    • Ah, but parents who are apathetic are likely to have children who voluntarily sign up. Or more likely to sign the permission slip the excited hormonal kid foists on them without even reading it.

      Having your parents opt you out of sex-ed classes is probably about as embarrassing as the poor atheist kid who wants to opt out of his teacher leading a prayer. I remember in 5th grade being teased as we stood in line to file into the classroom where the boys sex-ed film was being shown, by "friends" who express

    • It SHOULD be the default option -- because parents who are apathetic in this regard are likewise to be apathetic to sign them up.

      But this presumes that this is the proper function of the school, to pick up this slack, and I already noted that I do not think it is.

      • But this presumes that this is the proper function of the school, to pick up this slack, and I already noted that I do not think it is.

        But you aren't argueing against this really. You say:

        ..but if they must, then the class should be optional, and not the default option.

        You appear to accept that they WILL include such a program and argue how and why it should be optional. I felt your argument wasn't a very strong one.

        Overall, I agree with you that it should not be the job of public schools to teach ki

        • But you aren't argueing against this really.

          Yes, I am. That I accept the reality that sex education in schools is not going away any time soon does not mean I am not arguing against it.
          • I left out a word. It should have said:
            But you aren't argueing against this HERE really.
            I was addressing your arguement of how the system should work given that it was going to happen anyway.

            I base this on the assumption that an involved parent is more likely to 'opt out' of such a program than an apathetic parent (the most likely TARGET of such a program) would be to 'opt in'.
  • I have to agree that it is a parent's place to handle the more personal side of sexual education. I definitely put this into practice in real life with my children.

    However, I have to consider the very reason why we have sex education in public schools. Many children have parents who are ignorant themselves (sometimes by choice, sometimes by circumstance). Many parents are so completely uncomfortable discussing sex that they avoid the topic. Some parents, based on a religious belief that sex is not to b
    • Many children have parents who are ignorant themselves ... Many parents are so completely uncomfortable discussing sex that they avoid the topic ... Some parents fail to develop an open communication line with their children

      So? The point I am making is that without some greater context, the information is capable of doing significant damage, and these parents won't provide that context. I contend no public school instruction is better than what they would get.

      Some parents, based on a religious belief

  • In our society we let parents create the hardware, firmware, and operating system kernel in a child's mind. Then we expect to hand them over to mass schooling for the installation of proprietary drivers and DLLs, hoping against hope that it will all be compatible.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Close