graphic sex ed class under fire

[Fandango 1,440]

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.

To many....it is giving the permission to have sex. Which doesn't gel with my beliefs as a parent. Especially if the child is in elementary or middle school.

I will never find it acceptable for my middle schooler to be sexually active. Never.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It doesn't stop parents from teaching "moral behaviour", I don't think it even conflicts with that at all. Of course given that there is no uniform standard of sex ed in the home, the school is perhaps better placed to deliver a basic level of knowledge.

For proponents of "personal responsibility" surely the rest is up to the kid.

[slim 1,530]

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.

Actually, it is. If they stop having sex.... it stops spreading. It's a simple numbers game, really. +0 = +0 no matter how you crunch it.

That's a moronic statement to make, but much beloved of the curtain twitchers.

Call it what you want, but it's a mathematical law.

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.

I didn't hear anyone arguing that their kids shouldn't be taught to use condoms... they were saying they didn't like WHEN their kids were taught to use condoms.

[slim 1,530]

To many....it is giving the permission to have sex. Which doesn't gel with my beliefs as a parent. Especially if the child is in elementary or middle school.

I will never find it acceptable for my middle schooler to be sexually active. Never.

How does showing kids what sex is and how to prevent diseases akin to "giving them permission" to engage in it?

I would argue that IS your job. And I didn't see anything in the Iowa law (or any other law) that says kids have permission to have sex only after completing sex ed class.

Just to calm you down, there's nothing to suggest kids become sexually active because they had sex ed. Nothing. Not a single source.

[Peikko 1,575]

To many....it is giving the permission to have sex. Which doesn't gel with my beliefs as a parent. Especially if the child is in elementary or middle school.

I will never find it acceptable for my middle schooler to be sexually active. Never.

Speculation at its finest. It does not give anyone permission to do anything, and in fact if one is armed with accurate information about procreation and sexual behaviour MOST children choose to delay the onset of sexual experimentation. Very few highly educated children get pregnant accidentally, and the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is very much lower in these cohorts.

Whether you find whatever age 'acceptable' or not is irrelevant and should not drive what is and isn't taught in schools in terms of procreation and prevention of pregnancy and disease. What should drive such matters is the incidence of unplanned pregnancy and disease amongst those age groups - how's that for 'progressive'?

[Nina~ 431]

To many....it is giving the permission to have sex. Which doesn't gel with my beliefs as a parent. Especially if the child is in elementary or middle school.

I will never find it acceptable for my middle schooler to be sexually active. Never.

Sex Ed does not equate to "giving permission to have sex". As Cleo pointed out, it is to teach them safe mechanics of sex if they chose to have sex.

Even though you find it unacceptable for your middle schooler to have sex, wouldn't you want them to be safe (in terms of std & pregnancy) if they choose to have sex?

[slim 1,530]

What should drive such matters is the incidence of unplanned pregnancy and disease amongst those age groups - how's that for 'progressive'?

Well, Chicago better start 'em out in Head Start.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

Again, that was in another thread.

If its in the curriculum...

[Peikko 1,575]

How does showing kids what sex is and how to prevent diseases akin to "giving them permission" to engage in it?

I would argue that IS your job. And I didn't see anything in the Iowa law (or any other law) that says kids have permission to have sex only after completing sex ed class.

Just to calm you down, there's nothing to suggest kids become sexually active because they had sex ed. Nothing. Not a single source.

All the available evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. Those who know how sexually transmitted diseases are spread, what they are, and the effects they have and those who know how to avoid pregnancy tend to be those who do not engage in early sexual encounters.

It is the job of the parent to teach morality, and set sexual and emotional parameters and to give guidance, that is exactly the role of the parent. Sadly, that's not universally successfully taught either, but that's another matter.

[Amby 490]

hmmm...in grade 5 they didn't give us condoms. I think they gave us tampons and deodorant.

[Fandango 1,440]

Speculation at its finest. It does not give anyone permission to do anything, and in fact if one is armed with accurate information about procreation and sexual behaviour MOST children choose to delay the onset of sexual experimentation. Very few highly educated children get pregnant accidentally, and the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is very much lower in these cohorts.

Whether you find whatever age 'acceptable' or not is irrelevant and should not drive what is and isn't taught in schools in terms of procreation and prevention of pregnancy and disease. What should drive such matters is the incidence of unplanned pregnancy and disease amongst those age groups - how's that for 'progressive'?

Get this, it may be speculation for YOU, but not how *I* interpret it. And as a soon-to-be-parent, I wouldn't want someone like you with your beliefs on this teaching my child. How's that for speculation?

And get this...nothing you can say, nothing you can scoff at me for, or incorrectly presume will ever change that. We can sit here and post replies to each other all day long. It is not your place, nor the place of others like you, to teach my child what is MY responsibility to teach him, based upon when his father and I...you know, *the parents* actually decide it's best.

You have every right to believe what you want, and what you want to teach *your* kid(s) and when they learn it. Not mine, no ma'am.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What does showing someone how to use a condom have to do with belief?

Why is sex ed even controversial at all? Noone responsible is going to give out condoms and then tell the kids to go forth and multiply.

[slim 1,530]

It is not your place, nor the place of others like you, to teach my child what is MY responsibility to teach him, based upon when his father and I...you know, *the parents* actually decide it's best.

Until you change the law... it is.

You can opt out.. but that's only if you're paying enough attention to your child's curriculum to catch it in time.

[that_girl 9]

Get this, it may be speculation for YOU, but not how *I* interpret it. And as a soon-to-be-parent, I wouldn't want someone like you with your beliefs on this teaching my child. How's that for speculation?

And get this...nothing you can say, nothing you can scoff at me for, or incorrectly presume will ever change that. We can sit here and post replies to each other all day long. It is not your place, nor the place of others like you, to teach my child what is MY responsibility to teach him, based upon when his father and I...you know, *the parents* actually decide it's best.

You have every right to believe what you want, and what you want to teach *your* kid(s) and when they learn it. Not mine, no ma'am.

Sounds like home-schooling time!

[Fandango 1,440]

Until you change the law... it is.

You can opt out.. but that's only if you're paying enough attention to your child's curriculum to catch it in time.

Yeah, I get that. I guess I need to be vigilant once he starts school. But I have a few years

Sounds like home-schooling time!

Erm, no it doesn't, don't be daft.