graphic sex ed class under fire

[GabiandVi 34]

Were you taught what a ####### is and what you should do with it? You seem to have missed that bit out from your personal anecdote.

I am not quite sure what the problem with this is, depending of course on how the subject was approached. It is a fact that without proper stimulation, the female will not produce secretions that aid not only the comfort of the sexual act, but also its success in terms of fertilization. The ####### is not a sexual toy, nor is it a useless appendage but an integral part of the reproductive system and it seems to me that a proper understanding of this for both boys and girls is perfectly appropriate.

Who said there was a problem with it? Why are you on the attack? And "No duh" to the rest! Why do you think they were taught it?

As for the #######, yes, we were taught what it is, but not ALL the things to do with it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Please. Someone give me the statistics that prove that the ones "getting into trouble" are doing so "due to ignorance."

I'm in the front lines. The ones I see "getting into trouble" are not ignorant about any aspect of sex. They know what a condom is. They know how to use one. They know where to get them for free. They know about all sorts of other forms of birth control and how to get their hands on them without their parents knowing, with their parents knowing, for free or for a price. They know about sexually transmitted diseases. Just like they think they aren't going to have an accident driving drunk, they think they aren't going to get any disease. They know about their chances of getting pregnant. They know where to get an abortion. They know how to get public assistance for their prenatal vitamins, exams, classes. They have a list of names they've chosen for the babies. Or if they are boys, they keep a list of all the baby mammas they have.

The ones not getting into trouble know about these things as well. Kids make their choices based on their morals or their goals for their future and their ability to see beyond the immediate and/or their ability to stand up to what is, let's face it, extreme temptation. Not based on what they know about sex.

I don't really care if we teach sex ed in school. I see the argument that it's not the sort of thing that schools should be responsible for, but I also see the argument that many parents aren't doing their jobs and for our own protection we need to pick up some of the slack. But I think a lot of people are naive about what teenagers, preteens, and even younger kids know or don't know about sex or other things by rights they should be clueless about.

Your post is a bit confused. You say they know, but you demonstrate that they don't know, or more accurately the implications of what they know are not realized - sex education should make this abundantly clear - in my experience those armed with knowledge are more circumspect and studies in this area indicate very strongly that knowledge aids people in making better sexual choices at a young age.

However, yes, I agree that sexual education without context is not as helpful as it is with contextualization and a moral framework as well as the development of self worth and respect are pretty much the cornerstones for children to develop healthy sexual and emotional relationships.

[that_girl 9]

Just because I'm taking umbrage at the sex ed stuff doesn't mean I believe that education is rife with 'insidious opinions that differ from my own, and crazy teachers are trying to indoctrinate my children', and tbh, I resent your implication that merely because I disagree of where and when my child should learn sex ed means that I need to isolate my kid from normal society. I don't see what is so off the wall with a parent actually being INVOLVED in his/her child's education process. In fact, I'd dare say, if more took such an active role, we wouldn't have teachers having to fill the needs by being surrogate parents in our children's lives.

I will be making myself active in my child's education process. And when the time comes where I feel that the school system is overstepping its bounds, I will make adjustments. Will I wrap my kid in cotton wool and keep him segregated from society? Absolutely not.

I resent the implication that because you don't think your child should be taught sex-ed in school, it shouldn't be offered to ANY children. I don't see what all the fuss is about, really. I never had a sex talk with my parents, and I turned out perfectly well adjusted and morally upright in that department. You can opt out, or keep your kid out of school that day or something. But saying that it shouldn't be offered because it's the family's job to teach these things is narrow-minded and dismissive, in my opinion.

[Peikko 1,575]

Who said there was a problem with it? Why are you on the attack? And "No duh" to the rest! Why do you think they were taught it?

As for the #######, yes, we were taught what it is, but not ALL the things to do with it.

I am not 'on the attack' I responded to your post in the context that quoted a point I made that sex education is not tantamount to providing children with pornography in the class room and my reading of it in that context that in this instance one might believe that it is.

[Fandango 1,440]

I resent the implication that because you don't think your child should be taught sex-ed in school, it shouldn't be offered to ANY children. I don't see what all the fuss is about, really. I never had a sex talk with my parents, and I turned out perfectly well adjusted and morally upright in that department. You can opt out, or keep your kid out of school that day or something. But saying that it shouldn't be offered because it's the family's job to teach these things is narrow-minded and dismissive, in my opinion.

Ok, lemme amend then.

If you need school to parent your child, instead of taking the responsibility to do it yourselves, then go for it.

I'll opt out, and be a real parent to my child.

And, I didn't imply it, I outright said it.

[GabiandVi 34]

Your post is a bit confused. You say they know, but you demonstrate that they don't know, or more accurately the implications of what they know are not realized - sex education should make this abundantly clear - in my experience those armed with knowledge are more circumspect and studies in this area indicate very strongly that knowledge aids people in making better sexual choices at a young age.

However, yes, I agree that sexual education without context is not as helpful as it is with contextualization and a moral framework as well as the development of self worth and respect are pretty much the cornerstones for children to develop healthy sexual and emotional relationships.

Actually, I think you are confused. I'll say it again.

Kids make their choices based on their morals or their goals for their future and their ability to see beyond the immediate and/or their ability to stand up to what is, let's face it, extreme temptation. Not based on what they know about sex.

Morality cannot be taught in a sex ed class. That's a life long lesson and it starts at home. Sadly, we have very little impact on that. More than we realize sometimes, but less than we would want almost always.

And I still haven't seen the statistics indicating that those "getting in trouble" do so "due to ignorance."

[GabiandVi 34]

I am not 'on the attack' I responded to your post in the context that quoted a point I made that sex education is not tantamount to providing children with pornography in the class room and my reading of it in that context that in this instance one might believe that it is.

Actually, what I was responding to what that you said "No school is teaching sex education." I never said it is tantamount to providing children with pornography. (Did anyone say that, or is that your interpretation to what they said?) That's why I deleted the rest of your comment and only responded to the part I quoted.

[that_girl 9]

Ok, lemme amend then.

If you need school to parent your child, instead of taking the responsibility to do it yourselves, then go for it.

I'll opt out, and be a real parent to my child.

And, I didn't imply it, I outright said it.

I'm just saying that it's not an objective line in the sand. Some kids/parents wouldn't feel comfortable talking about these things. That doesn't equate to bad parenting.

[Fandango 1,440]

I'm just saying that it's not an objective line in the sand. Some kids/parents wouldn't feel comfortable talking about these things. That doesn't equate to bad parenting.

Certainly does, to 'pass the buck' on something so terribly important to a child's future and choices, merely because one is 'uncomfortable'. You don't wanna do anything uncomfortable? Don't have a kid

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually, I think you are confused. I'll say it again.

Kids make their choices based on their morals or their goals for their future and their ability to see beyond the immediate and/or their ability to stand up to what is, let's face it, extreme temptation. Not based on what they know about sex.

Morality cannot be taught in a sex ed class. That's a life long lesson and it starts at home. Sadly, we have very little impact on that. More than we realize sometimes, but less than we would want almost always.

And I still haven't seen the statistics indicating that those "getting in trouble" do so "due to ignorance."

I am not confused, but your posts are confusing.

I never said morality should be taught in sex ed classes, but certainly context for sexual behaviour should be, things like what constitutes a stable relationship, what prompts someone to have sex outside of that context and whether such choices to have sex are due to a feeling of pressure to conform to a stereotype of what is expected of in particular girls and is therefore not so much a 'choice' to do something as a fear as to how they will be treated if they do not do something.

As to the statistics, look em up, they are freely available.

[Peikko 1,575]

Certainly does, to 'pass the buck' on something so terribly important to a child's future and choices, merely because one is 'uncomfortable'. You don't wanna do anything uncomfortable? Don't have a kid

How is allowing your child to participate in sexual education classes within the school framework 'passing the buck'? As has been pointed out, some children are more receptive to learning about sexuality from a neutral person as apposed to a parent. It also does not stop any parent from making their own significant contribution, what is at stake is this idea that a parent 'knows' when the time is right. However intuitive you feel you are, you can't know what your child is thinking - and if a child suspects that you are disapproving of something that they have some fascination with, they are going to make damn sure you don't know about it.

[Fandango 1,440]

How is allowing your child to participate in sexual education classes within the school framework 'passing the buck'? As has been pointed out, some children are more receptive to learning about sexuality from a neutral person as apposed to a parent. It also does not stop any parent from making their own significant contribution, what is at stake is this idea that a parent 'knows' when the time is right. However intuitive you feel you are, you can't know what your child is thinking - and if a child suspects that you are disapproving of something that they have some fascination with, they are going to make damn sure you don't know about it.

I was responding to the notion that some parents want sex ed in school because they are uncomfortable with having the discussion. Spin it which way you want, but on that premise, that is passing the buck imo.

Sure, I'm not a mind reader, but I will assure you that I will know my child a hell of a lot better than you will!

[GabiandVi 34]

I could see parents getting mad about that. But that's not what happened in Podunk and apparently, that's why you pay the big bucks for Catholic school!

Actually, I grew up in "Podunk," LA, where most Catholic schools are not big bucks, though, admittedly, my high school and our brother school were somewhat because they were not funded by the diocese.

I have alway found it humorous that the boys were taught this in a Catholic school when I hear people disparaging Christians for being prudish, close-minded, narrow-minded, etc. There was a reason they were taught this, of course, and it serves the purpose of the Church, but still, it is interesting.

We girls were not taught techniques of arousal because, well, they usually aren't necessary. Just a bonus. Yes?

[GabiandVi 34]

I am not confused, but your posts are confusing.

I never said morality should be taught in sex ed classes, but certainly context for sexual behaviour should be, things like what constitutes a stable relationship, what prompts someone to have sex outside of that context and whether such choices to have sex are due to a feeling of pressure to conform to a stereotype of what is expected of in particular girls and is therefore not so much a 'choice' to do something as a fear as to how they will be treated if they do not do something.

As to the statistics, look em up, they are freely available.

Ah yes. If you don't understand, it's because the poster is confusing.

Again, what you don't get, and I don't know why I'm wasting my time because you still won't get it or you will pretend to not get it or all together ignore it, is that you can teach those things all you want. It is still up to the student and their goals and morals and/or ability to see through that hormonal and biological haze that makes them believe they are invulnerable.

The students I teach openly discuss their choices. They give reasons for them. They are all in the same sex ed classes, but their experiences and family dynamics differ. Some say they aren't going to have children until they are older because they have plans. Some say that they aren't going to let "that triflin boy give them some disease." Some say they want a child now. Some say they won't have sex with a girl who is on birth control (those usually don't give reasons unless pushed and their reasons are nonsensical.)

These students knew all about the STDs, birth control methods, relationship advice, etc. before entering high school. They've known it for years. They've made their decisions and they continue making their decisions based on what is acceptable according to their own moral codes, not what they've learned in school about sex. It's not like teaching math or reading or even biology, which is what sex ed without morality is. Unfortunately, "context for sexual behavior" is not something you can measure mastery of.

[GabiandVi 34]

Your post is a bit confused. You say they know, but you demonstrate that they don't know, or more accurately the implications of what they know are not realized.

Sort of like smoking cigarrettes in 2010? Maybe people smoke because they've missed all the education about how harmful it is? If only we could just teach them more. Because, they obviously demonstrate that they don't know yet, or more accurately the implications of what they know are not realized.

Life is reality. It's not theory. These kids know. My post is not confused. You are.