graphic sex ed class under fire

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

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

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

I'll ignore the platitudes.

I do not know why you think your personal experience somehow equate to fact. Interesting? Perhaps, but anecdotal and coloured by your personal prejudices is what they are, that is not a reliable statement of fact.

[GabiandVi 34]

I'll ignore the platitudes.

I do not know why you think your personal experience somehow equate to fact. Interesting? Perhaps, but anecdotal and coloured by your personal prejudices is what they are, that is not a reliable statement of fact.

State your facts. I have looked for the "available studies." I find none.

In theory, teaching people about the harmful effects of smoking should prevent them from smoking, yet smoking is on the rise. Is this because people are ignorant of the harmful effects? They'd have to be living under a rock. In reality, people make choices based on their experiences and what is important to them.

I think the facts about teenage pregnancy and STDs among teenagers speak for themselves. Your opinions based on no experience are colored by your personal prejudices. The fact that you have zero anecdotes to base them on, only your favorite theories, make them no less so.

I have no problem with teaching sex ed in school. But if you want to stick your head in a hole and tell yourself this is the solution, that's your problem. If you are so naive to believe it is just a matter of teaching the kids the facts about pregnancy and STDs, then so be it.

I'd be vaguely interested to know what you think my personal prejudices are. You'd be way off, I have not a single doubt. But you'll keep them no matter what, so keep you can keep them to yourself. That should suit your not so subtle implications based on your confused assumptions about anyone who does not tow your exact line, or whose point of view you are too confused to see around the blinders you wear.

[Fandango 1,440]

I'll ignore the platitudes.

I do not know why you think your personal experience somehow equate to fact. Interesting? Perhaps, but anecdotal and coloured by your personal prejudices is what they are, that is not a reliable statement of fact.

The irony is, if you stopped long enough to realize what she's saying, she is kinda backing up your point that education is not going to negatively affect kids and sexual intercourse....

[Amby 490]

hmmm...we need a poll about sex ed. I will think on that. I'll report back with a poll tomorrow.

[Peikko 1,575]

State your facts. I have looked for the "available studies." I find none.

In theory, teaching people about the harmful effects of smoking should prevent them from smoking, yet smoking is on the rise. Is this because people are ignorant of the harmful effects? They'd have to be living under a rock. In reality, people make choices based on their experiences and what is important to them.

I think the facts about teenage pregnancy and STDs among teenagers speak for themselves. Your opinions based on no experience are colored by your personal prejudices. The fact that you have zero anecdotes to base them on, only your favorite theories, make them no less so.

I have no problem with teaching sex ed in school. But if you want to stick your head in a hole and tell yourself this is the solution, that's your problem. If you are so naive to believe it is just a matter of teaching the kids the facts about pregnancy and STDs, then so be it.

I'd be vaguely interested to know what you think my personal prejudices are. You'd be way off, I have not a single doubt. But you'll keep them no matter what, so keep you can keep them to yourself. That should suit your not so subtle implications based on your confused assumptions about anyone who does not tow your exact line, or whose point of view you are too confused to see around the blinders you wear.

Let's go with your smoking analogy, why not? Are you seriously going to suggest that our current knowledge of the health risks that are directly attributable to smoking cigarettes have no effect whatsoever on the rate at which new smokers take up the habit based on the fact that a proportion of people will start to smoke despite the general availability of this information? No wonder you don't understand what I am getting at with the importance of using empirical data to make an accurate assessment of how the availability of information impacts populations as regard to behavioural trends. Suffice to say, more people benefit from the availability of factual information and make rational decisions based on that available information than those who ignore it for whatever reason.

Since the 40's the incidence of adults regularly smoking has halved from in the 40% range to being in the 20% range - by all accounts that is a statistically significant improvement.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Sure. Let the parents teach their kids about sex ed. But, by the time the parents teach them, the kid has already reach puberty and begin to alienate themselves from their parents and start to do secret things.

[GabiandVi 34]

Let's go with your smoking analogy, why not? Are you seriously going to suggest that our current knowledge of the health risks that are directly attributable to smoking cigarettes have no effect whatsoever on the rate at which new smokers take up the habit based on the fact that a proportion of people will start to smoke despite the general availability of this information? No wonder you don't understand what I am getting at with the importance of using empirical data to make an accurate assessment of how the availability of information impacts populations as regard to behavioural trends. Suffice to say, more people benefit from the availability of factual information and make rational decisions based on that available information than those who ignore it for whatever reason.

Since the 40's the incidence of adults regularly smoking has halved from in the 40% range to being in the 20% range - by all accounts that is a statistically significant improvement.

Empirical data shows a rise in new smokers in the US. Get it? Of course not.

If you seriously think that kids who are engaging in risky sexual behavior are learning new things about the risks in a sex ed course, good for you. If you seriously think that kids who are engaging in risky sexual behavior are influenced by the reinforcement in sex ed classes of what they already know about the risks, good for you. Maybe if we began showing them pictures of gonerrhea infected people in about 3rd grade or younger - scare the sh!t out of them - we might influence them, but by 6th or 7th grade, it's too late for the kids who are at risk of this sort of behavior. The ones who are not at risk probably aren't at risk because their parents have influenced them and perhaps those are the parents who don't want their kids taught these sorts of things in school.

Empirical data shows an increase in incidences of gonorrhea. More sex ed courses. More gonorrhea. Your theory isn't working.

[Peikko 1,575]

Empirical data shows a rise in new smokers in the US. Get it? Of course not.

If you seriously think that kids who are engaging in risky sexual behavior are learning new things about the risks in a sex ed course, good for you. If you seriously think that kids who are engaging in risky sexual behavior are influenced by the reinforcement in sex ed classes of what they already know about the risks, good for you. Maybe if we began showing them pictures of gonerrhea infected people in about 3rd grade or younger - scare the sh!t out of them - we might influence them, but by 6th or 7th grade, it's too late for the kids who are at risk of this sort of behavior. The ones who are not at risk probably aren't at risk because their parents have influenced them and perhaps those are the parents who don't want their kids taught these sorts of things in school.

Empirical data shows an increase in incidences of gonorrhea. More sex ed courses. More gonorrhea. Your theory isn't working.

Yes, I get what you said although that 'rise' is shown as a 'flat line' in the study I looked at. Even a single % rise over a short period of time is not really significant in behaviour trending terms but I don't expect you to 'get it'.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for calling it 'my theory' but really, it's not something I came up with - I have simply absorbed the available data and recognize that education is important. As a teacher, I'm surprised you think it has so little effect. Interesting...

[Niels Bohr 72]

We can't use numbers to predict the outcome of a social decision. Heck, I was taught sex ed when I was a kid. In fact, I was taught sex ed in the 5th grade.

We are forgetting about peer pressure, self-esteem, etc...as the kid age to puberty. Some kids, regardless of how their parents raised them, will still do these kinds of behavior.

We have Sarah Palin's daughter as an example. There are plenty more people who says they know their kids, but, they don't know their kids are doing mary-j, coke, meth, etc...when their parents aren't looking.

There's no risk. Human ethics is about doing something right when someone's not watching. But, these kids are too young to understand ethics. Ethics require maturity to realize the significance.

These kids do not understand ethics since mommy and papa are always there. Is that the innocence?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Outrageous!

Children should just google "porn" like most kids do.

[GabiandVi 34]

Yes, I get what you said although that 'rise' is shown as a 'flat line' in the study I looked at. Even a single % rise over a short period of time is not really significant in behaviour trending terms but I don't expect you to 'get it'.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for calling it 'my theory' but really, it's not something I came up with - I have simply absorbed the available data and recognize that education is important. As a teacher, I'm surprised you think it has so little effect. Interesting...

And a "theory" it is. Not reality.

You can teach facts, skills, concepts, etc., but you can't teach a kid morality at the age of 14. Not in a school setting. And especially not with the sorts of restraints we face and the sorts of negative factors that undo what we do every day. But you probably don't understand the difference between teaching facts and teaching "responsible sexual behavior" or responsible behavior at all. You probably don't understand the difference between teaching skills and responsible behavior. You probably don't understand the difference between teaching concepts and responsible behavior. Blame the teacher. It's convenient.

Tell me, what assessment tool would you use to measure mastery of "responsible behavior?" How do we document when a student is approaching basic responsible behavior? How do we report it? Anecdotally, perhaps?

[Peikko 1,575]

And a "theory" it is. Not reality.

You can teach facts, skills, concepts, etc., but you can't teach a kid morality at the age of 14. Not in a school setting. And especially not with the sorts of restraints we face and the sorts of negative factors that undo what we do every day. But you probably don't understand the difference between teaching facts and teaching "responsible sexual behavior" or responsible behavior at all. You probably don't understand the difference between teaching skills and responsible behavior. You probably don't understand the difference between teaching concepts and responsible behavior. Blame the teacher. It's convenient.

Tell me, what assessment tool would you use to measure mastery of "responsible behavior?" How do we document when a student is approaching basic responsible behavior? How do we report it? Anecdotally, perhaps?

Where exactly did I suggest that schools start teaching morality? All I have said is that providing children with factual information on procreation and sexually transmitted diseases and their prevention is a useful tool and can be shown to have positively impacted trends in children's behaviour as regards sexual experimentation. I have also postulated that providing children with facts on condoms does not have a moral component, nor does it 'persuade' children to engage in sexual experimentation. Knowing how to put one on doesn't promote arousal - but it does provide children with factual information that could prevent pregnancy or disease when ignorance most certainly will not.

I would further suggest that providing some contextual information on relationships, emotional stability as the most satisfactory basis for engaging in sexual behaviour and providing children with the tools to develop self esteem and self worth outside of the pressures of ones peers might be a further step in the right direction and should be included in sexual education - it can't be beyond the whit of man to be able to do this without scaring children witless about the evils of sexual behaviours and screwing them up royally.

I have never blamed a teacher for anything, least of all my child's behaviour - what leads you to suppose I 'blame' teachers or hold them accountable for anything at all?

[SuperDuper! 230]

Charles would love this thread!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Sure. Let the parents teach their kids about sex ed. But, by the time the parents teach them, the kid has already reach puberty and begin to alienate themselves from their parents and start to do secret things.

We taught our kids about sex long before puberty. And our discussions were very plain and "graphic" if you want to use the term (no, not with photos of live demonstrations) and we spoke frankly and plainly. Why not? The kids on the playgorund do and they did 45 years ago also. Why shouldn't we? Embarrassed? Of what? I didn't invent this stuff, it just is. If I taught them to wipe their @ss, I can teach them what a condom is. It is just as natural a function as going to the toilet.

Google "porn" any kid can do it on their Iphone. If you want to see what realistic 3D models of a ####### can do, click on the "toys" thumbnail.

Any parent who isn't all over this and teaching their children about it long before puberty will reap what they sow.

and I would not say any my children are "alienated". Yes they like to do their thing with their friends and not have mommy and daddy holding their hand...but I would hardly call our relationship alienated and if there is something they aren't asking me about...I'd like to know what it could be. Be open with your kids and you will be their favorite advisor. You should be.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Gary and Alla