graphic sex ed class under fire

[Peikko 1,575]

It is not school's responsibility to teach sex ed, that is a parent's job!

It's societies responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to important information that can have profound affects on future lives. No school is providing 'sex' education - what they are providing is education to understand the reproductive process and hopefully, if they are doing a good job, providing information on how to form and maintain constructive emotional relationships within which to engage in sexual activity.

If we have parents who have had children outside these parameters (which of course WE DO) how can we expect the next generation to make different choices that could perfectly conceivably lift them out of destructive cycles if they don't have access to non biased and equally important accurate information? Schools are in the position to provide that information in a non threatening, non biased setting - parents almost always are not.

That said, parents should still talk to their children about emotional relationships, sex and procreation, but it is not the most reliable source of information for many, many children.

[slim 1,533]

what they are providing is education to understand the reproductive process and hopefully, if they are doing a good job, providing information on how to form and maintain constructive emotional relationships within which to engage in sexual activity.

I don't know of any schools that talk about emotional relationships and sex. As you've pointed out, they don't even really talk about anything other than the actual act itself and usually that's in more of a scientific or anatomical nature.

I'm in full agreement with you on this one, they should have a "healthy relationships" class at age 14 along with their sex ed. Problem is, most of those kids would realize their parents don't have healthy relationships and that would lead to further problems with the school board and then we'd start all over.

We need just enough to say we've done it. That's all the politicians care about.

[Fandango 1,440]

Actually, it is their responsibility. It's the law.

huh?

It's societies responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to important information that can have profound affects on future lives. No school is providing 'sex' education - what they are providing is education to understand the reproductive process and hopefully, if they are doing a good job, providing information on how to form and maintain constructive emotional relationships within which to engage in sexual activity.

If we have parents who have had children outside these parameters (which of course WE DO) how can we expect the next generation to make different choices that could perfectly conceivably lift them out of destructive cycles if they don't have access to non biased and equally important accurate information? Schools are in the position to provide that information in a non threatening, non biased setting - parents almost always are not.

That said, parents should still talk to their children about emotional relationships, sex and procreation, but it is not the most reliable source of information for many, many children.

Teaching 8th graders to put on condoms is NOT a school's right nor responsibility. Nor is it 'society's job to provide information on how to form and maintain constructive emotional relationships within which to engage in sexual activity'. No way.

It is not the gov'ts job to raise my child. To second guess my role and duty as a parent to teach my child what I feel is necc for his life as an adult? No, methinks NOT.

[Amby 490]

Peep, it's the law in Iowa. Steve posted it

Iowa Sexuality Education Law and Policy

Iowa mandates that health education be taught in kindergarten through twelfth grade. Iowa law details what must be included in health education by grade. In first through sixth grade, "the health curriculum shall include the characteristics of communicable diseases including acquired immune deficiency syndrome [AIDS]." In seventh and eighth grade, health education must "include the characteristics of sexually transmitted disease and acquired immune deficiency syndrome." In ninth through twelfth grade, (students must take health education at least once during these four grades), health education must include information on "the prevention and control of disease, including sexually transmitted diseases [sTDs] and acquired immune deficiency syndrome." Additionally, health curricula must include information about Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and the HPV vaccine. Iowa law mandates that the curricula use materials that are up-to-date, age-appropriate, and research-based/medically accurate; furthermore, all information must be free of biases based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender. School districts may teach age-appropriate, science-based, comprehensive sexuality education as part of the health curriculum, but may also use abstinence-only materials so long as those materials fall within the parameters of the law.

Parents or guardians may remove their children from any part of health education courses if the course conflicts with the student's religious beliefs. This is referred to as an "opt-out" policy.

See Iowa Code 279.50, 256.11, m and Iowa Administrative Code 281-12.5 and House File 611.

[slim 1,533]

huh?

Did you read the entire article or stop once you got PO'd?

Just in case you didn't, it says the school is REQUIRED to teach sex ed. REQUIRED. That means the voting public has determined it is the government's job to teach their youngsters about sex.

Teaching 8th graders to put on condoms is NOT a school's right nor responsibility.

Think whatever you want, but as said.... it's REQUIRED in Podunk, Iowa.

[Peikko 1,575]

huh?

Teaching 8th graders to put on condoms is NOT a school's right nor responsibility. Nor is it 'society's job to provide information on how to form and maintain constructive emotional relationships within which to engage in sexual activity'. No way.

It is not the gov'ts job to raise my child. To second guess my role and duty as a parent to teach my child what I feel is necc for his life as an adult? No, methinks NOT.

Why? How does that present a threat to a child in any shape or form? Because you know how to do it properly, and in such a way as provides the proper protection were one to be in a situation where the use of one would be entirely appropriate and protective does not in any way drive someone to use one, in fact I would have thought in many ways it would have the opposite effect. However, in those cases were a younger child experiments with sexual relationships such advice is invaluable to prevent cycles of destructive behaviour.

As to the second point, you want reproduction to be taught outside of any normal emotional context? Why would you want procreation to be taught in such a bizarre and unrealistic fashion? How utterly inane and again, your assumption that all children have access to unbiased information from their parents is Unicorns and rainbows at their finest. Clearly, children rarely have access to accurate, informed information and you would like what there is to be stopped due to what? The only thing I see from your posts is an attitude that sexuality is some kind of taboo subject that should be kept behind closed doors, how, um, quaint.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Fandango 1,440]

Did you read the entire article or stop once you got PO'd?

Just in case you didn't, it says the school is REQUIRED to teach sex ed. REQUIRED. That means the voting public has determined it is the government's job to teach their youngsters about sex.

Think whatever you want, but as said.... it's REQUIRED in Podunk, Iowa.

I don't read most of Steve's posts my bad this time

Why? How does that present a threat to a child in any shape or form? Because you know how to do it properly, and in such a way as provides the proper protection were one to be in a situation where the use of one would be entirely appropriate and protective does not in any way drive someone to use one, in fact I would have thought in many ways it would have the opposite effect. However, in those cases were a younger child experiments with sexual relationships such advice is invaluable to prevent cycles of destructive behaviour.

As to the second point, you want reproduction to be taught outside of any normal emotional context? Why would you want procreation to be taught in such a bizarre and unrealistic fashion? How utterly inane and again, your assumption that all children have access to unbiased information from their parents is Unicorns and rainbows at their finest. Clearly, children rarely have access to accurate, informed information and you would like what there is to be stopped due to what? The only thing I see from your posts is an attitude that sexuality is some kind of taboo subject that should be kept behind closed doors, how, um, quaint.

Because the choice of when to teach a child about condoms, and whether that family believes in the usage of condoms, is up to that family.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't read most of Steve's posts my bad this time

Because the choice of when to teach a child about condoms, and whether that family believes in the usage of condoms, is up to that family.

No, it's not. Every child has the right to know that condoms are the only reliable method to prevent the spread of most communicable sexual diseases. Such knowledge is not a 'moral' choice. The family can and should teach their child their own view of morality, but to leave a child in ignorance of facts in such matters is unconscionable.

I presume a daughter of yours would not have access to facts based on your posts. How sad.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

School should be reserved for the basics, math, reading, etc. If I was a parent of someone in this class, I'd be pissed that it was done without my advance notice AND permission.

Sex ed is usually done by the school and with the parents advance knowledge and consent.

I remember having to take a form home in primary school inviting parents for an advance preview of the lesson and the option to opt out if they chose. We were shown how to put condoms on, and that was in 1988.

[Fandango 1,440]

No, it's not. Every child has the right to know that condoms are the only reliable method to prevent the spread of most communicable sexual diseases. Such knowledge is not a 'moral' choice. The family can and should teach their child their own view of morality, but to leave a child in ignorance of facts in such matters is unconscionable.

I presume a daughter of yours would not have access to facts based on your posts. How sad.

That is because of your liberal mindset and your automatic need to finger point and make assumptions. I never said sex ed was evil or bad. I said it was my choice as a parent. My daughter would have access to facts based on when *I* felt that she was ready for that information, not in a school where 5th graders can get free condoms (another thread).

eta: condoms are not the ONLY reliable method, either. And that's the kind of info that gets lost in having a person of dubious morality teach 'responsibility' to your kids!

Edited June 23, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Seriously being shown how to use condoms does not make the teacher a "person of dubious morality", that's hyperbole.

[slim 1,533]

Because the choice of when to teach a child about condoms, and whether that family believes in the usage of condoms, is up to that family.

Actually, in Podunk, Iowa, it's not. Well, that is unless you choose to opt out. - Or if they let you choose to opt out. Apparently many of these parents were too busy to notice until it was too late.

Every child has the right to know that condoms are the only reliable method to prevent the spread of most communicable sexual diseases.

Where's does that "right" come from?

By the way, there's another proven method to preventing communicable diseases that is 100% effective.

that's the kind of info that gets lost in having a person of dubious morality teach 'responsibility' to your kids!

That's what happens when you let politicians decide what's best for your family.

[Peikko 1,575]

Not having sex is not a reliable method of preventing the spread of communicable sexual diseases for those who choose to participate in sexual activity. That's a moronic statement to make, but much beloved of the curtain twitchers.

My point is that having the information to prevent sexually transmitted diseases does not MAKE you go out and have sex, it allows you to have sex in the safest possible way, should you make that choice to go ahead and have sex. That choice is not made because of the availability or knowledge of condoms. Knowledge of condoms and their use is not a threat to morality, sexual propriety or some indicator that one is a promiscuous harlot - it's just knowledge which is a GOOD THING.

[Fandango 1,440]

Seriously being shown how to use condoms does not make the teacher a "person of dubious morality", that's hyperbole.

Its not hyperbole when a teacher can give out condoms to a 5th grader. No, it's not.

Again, that was in another thread.

[Peikko 1,575]

That is because of your liberal mindset and your automatic need to finger point and make assumptions. I never said sex ed was evil or bad. I said it was my choice as a parent. My daughter would have access to facts based on when *I* felt that she was ready for that information, not in a school where 5th graders can get free condoms (another thread).

eta: condoms are not the ONLY reliable method, either. And that's the kind of info that gets lost in having a person of dubious morality teach 'responsibility' to your kids!

Yet, as you can't see into the mind of another human being your 'feeling' as to when it is appropriate may very well leave this hypothetical child pregnant or diseased. Great parenting