[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by LAN

... Ahh here's the crux. It is the job of the parents.
So why is sex education even part of the curriculum in the first place? ...

Is that a trick question?

1. The definition of sex education according to some parents (unless you know different) = "you should abstain from sex until ... whenever".

2. A recent report found that abstinence policies are ineffective.

HTH

[LANMaster]

That does not matter. As a parent, I have the right to raise my child according to my beliefs, not yours.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

That does not matter. As a parent, I have the right to raise my child according to my beliefs, not yours.

agreed....within the law....and that's the crux of the issue....if parents are inept, do lawmakers have the right to step in and "educate" the young on matters of public health?

is it right to target, say, the poor, based on an assumption that- in general- the poor are less educated as adults....or blacks, because -in general- there are fewer men in the family unit....or the fiercely upwardly mobile, because -in general- the priority is economic prosperity, not "family time"

the fact that none of these assumptions apply to 100% of their target populations means to me that its discriminatory to target a select group of populations...so either make it universal, or you don't do it all.

which takes the issue out of the liberal/conservative agenda mantra, and puts it, imo, squarely into the "what's best for society?" catagory.

for some, it will undermine the values that they are working to instill in their kids, by introducing information deemed by the parents to be "unnecessary" or "counterproductive"....for others, it will be that child's only formal introduction into sexuality.

when i was a kid, parents were allowed to opt their children out of sex education....is this not the case anymore? (seems i had that choice with my daughter about 5 years ago ).....if it IS still a matter of choice, how can anyone claim that any one policy of sex education is a "failure"?

what was the abstinence policy supposed to accomplish, that some other form of birth control wasn't? .....

create a crop of virgins for young men to choose from?

[Fyzbo]

Originally Posted by iltos

what was the abstinence policy supposed to accomplish, that some other form of birth control wasn't? .....

create a crop of virgins for young men to choose from?

From my understanding, abstinence only policies where implemented by those who felt there was no reason to teach birth control/safe sex practices as the children would not be having sex. What is the point of teaching safe sex when there is no sex?

Some went so far as to say teaching birth control/safe sex made it more likely that students would not wait until marriage. I guess some feel that knowledge is a bad thing.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Fyzbo

From my understanding, abstinence only policies where implemented by those who felt there was no reason to teach birth control/safe sex practices as the children would not be having sex. What is the point of teaching safe sex when there is no sex?

which sounds like somebody introducing an agenda in place of a public health policy

Some went so far as to say teaching birth control/safe sex made it more likely that students would not wait until marriage. I guess some feel that knowledge is a bad thing.

this is the "unnecessary" or "counterproductive" part of the public health policy that "abstinance only" advocates want taken out of sex education?....it smacks to me of "my way or the highway"....a completely unrealistic view of the society they live in, and a completely unrealistic view of their individual rights in a social setting.

there are options for these folks....if their belief system is so pervasive and they are so convinced of its importance to raising their children a certain way, they need to arrange their life so as to keep their kids out of the public school system.... spend money on a school that adheres to their beliefs, or homeschool.

imo

[LANMaster]

Teaching a 4th grader how to use a condom is sheer lunacy.

It's about the age that bugs me. Once a child turns say, 16, then allow them to opt out of sex ed if they want. But don't mandate that it be taught to Jr. High schoolers. Give the parents some rights on raising their children as they see fit.

It's no wonder home schooling is so popular ..... and no onder that liberals wish to abolish home schooling. .

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Teaching a 4th grader how to use a condom is sheer lunacy.

It's about the age that bugs me. Once a child turns say, 16, then allow them to opt out of sex ed if they want. But don't mandate that it be taught to Jr. High schoolers. Give the parents some rights on raising their children as they see fit.

It's no wonder home schooling is so popular ..... and no onder that liberals wish to abolish home schooling. .

i think you and i have had this discussion before, LAN....i remember way back when our teachers were dinosaurs .....that'd be like the late 50's.....i had sex education in the 5th grade (maybe 6th).....no condoms that i remember....more an education of anatomy and an introduction into the emotional nightmare of hormones....but that was even pre-pill, and i think the only forms of birth control were cold showers, withdrawal (yeah...that was good one) and abstinence....there may have been condoms.....hey- i was in grade school

but its a different world....and while i'm personally shocked that some schools have 4th or 5th graders sliding condoms over cucumbers, we do reap what we sow.....

and if our attitude is "shock (no awe )" then we haven't been very honest with ourselves, imo.....we learned our sexual attitudes from the generation that raised us, and the fact that "porno" is a multi-billion dollar dirty word in america (produced here, and in countries much more open minded about sex and intimacy and being human), and that teen pregancy is considered to be near epidemic proportions in some populations, fairly screams at me that we are still confused about our own attitudes about sex and intimacy, as adults.

as in...we know we love it....but as some level we still believe we're supposed to hate it....i don't for a moment believe that christains are heaven bent to instill that attitude in their kids, nor do i believe that more "liberated" parents want their kids having sex at 14.....but like most garbage that get heavily politicized in this country, we end up teaching our kids the extremes -in spite of our best intentions- for fear of "making a mistake"

the mistake, imo, is that fear.

[Farmgirl22]

Originally Posted by iltos

agreed....within the law....and that's the crux of the issue....if parents are inept, do lawmakers have the right to step in and "educate" the young on matters of public health?

is it right to target, say, the poor, based on an assumption that- in general- the poor are less educated as adults....or blacks, because -in general- there are fewer men in the family unit....or the fiercely upwardly mobile, because -in general- the priority is economic prosperity, not "family time"

the fact that none of these assumptions apply to 100% of their target populations means to me that its discriminatory to target a select group of populations...so either make it universal, or you don't do it all.

which takes the issue out of the liberal/conservative agenda mantra, and puts it, imo, squarely into the "what's best for society?" catagory.

for some, it will undermine the values that they are working to instill in their kids, by introducing information deemed by the parents to be "unnecessary" or "counterproductive"....for others, it will be that child's only formal introduction into sexuality.

when i was a kid, parents were allowed to opt their children out of sex education....is this not the case anymore? (seems i had that choice with my daughter about 5 years ago ).....if it IS still a matter of choice, how can anyone claim that any one policy of sex education is a "failure"?

what was the abstinence policy supposed to accomplish, that some other form of birth control wasn't? .....

create a crop of virgins for young men to choose from?

Same here--my parents chose not to opt me out, but they still had the choice. I'm not sure why if it's optional it would be a problem at all....like you said, how can something that is decided on a parents whim deemed a failure--UNLESS those same kids that have parents who opted them out are the ones who are in all sorts of trouble. Has there been any research done on this?

I also agree that it can't be a "pick & choose" type of deal...if it's going to be in the educational system, it's got to be in all of it. Otherwise there becomes a whole new can of worms exploding all over the place. Blacks would clamor about racism, the poor would do the same about "picking on them for their social class", etc.

Besides, ignorance about sex isn't something that's limited to a particular group or class...it's just dispersed randomly throughout all the groups and classes. Heck, I watched a show called "Berman & Berman" on the Oxygen channel once (I recommend it, very informational and fun)....turns out even though I'm a "season pro" (from being married and having a kid), even I'm a bit ignorant on some things. Granted, I obviously don't think that that particular show should be shown in classrooms nationwide or anything, I find it silly to intentionally leave our kids in the dark on something that potentially dangerous to them--especially because we can't control every aspect of their lives.

Originally Posted by Fyzbo

From my understanding, abstinence only policies where implemented by those who felt there was no reason to teach birth control/safe sex practices as the children would not be having sex. What is the point of teaching safe sex when there is no sex?

Some went so far as to say teaching birth control/safe sex made it more likely that students would not wait until marriage. I guess some feel that knowledge is a bad thing.

BS! Or am I supposed to say shenanigans? Either way, I think that children deserve to hear both sides of the story--period. I feel that kids are prone to making mistakes, wouldn't it be better for society if they at least had the option to make an "informed/smart/healthy" mistake instead of making one that was based solely on ignorance which is MORE LIKELY to get them into trouble?

The statement (which I know isn't actually yours Fyzbo, so I'm not directing this at you personally) about there being no sex is completely ignorant and arrogant. For anyone to say "my child isn't having sex, he/she would never do such a thing" is pretty ignorant and arrogant. (Anyone ever notice that it's almost always the parent of the teen that's sexually active with anyone/everyone that says that? Up to the point where precious comes home and tells them that they are going to be grandparents/ he/she has a serious STD?? ) Sorry, personal opinions aside...it's impossible for a parent to know what a teen (or pre-teen) is doing every second of every day, and it's silly for a parent to just assume that their child is either having protected sex or isn't having sex at all.

We have a sex-crazed society...every aspect of our lives is battered with it. TV, Internet, billboards, clothing, magazines--everything that we come into contact with has some essence of sexual reference. With all that, how do we expect our kids to ignore it and pretend that it's not happening and that they aren't supposed to partake? Regardless of how well you teach a child, they are going to rebel about something--do you really want to look the fool when it's sex that they choose? Do you really want them to be the ones with a ruined life because of an uncurable disease or burdened with a child before they are ready?

I don't think taking sex education out of school is the answer to our problems--nor do I think throwing condoms at teens is the answer either. I think that a well-rounded education program IS the answer. Promote abstinence without promoting ignorance. Teaching kids about condoms, birth control, & disease doesn't teach them to go out and "get it on" with everyone--abstinence can still be promoted simultaneously if it's done properly.

{/rant} I'm out...have a great afternoon!

[Fyzbo]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Teaching a 4th grader how to use a condom is sheer lunacy.

It's about the age that bugs me. Once a child turns say, 16, then allow them to opt out of sex ed if they want. But don't mandate that it be taught to Jr. High schoolers. Give the parents some rights on raising their children as they see fit.

It's no wonder home schooling is so popular ..... and no onder that liberals wish to abolish home schooling. .

The school districts I have knowledge of have to sex ed. classes. The first is in 5th grade where the students attend with their parents (completely optional). The second is in 9th grade and is incorporated with health class. I'd be surprised for someone to say their kid of 14-15 years shouldn't know about aids/herpes/etc. I bet they could opt out if they insisted, but at this point it's not about values/morals, but about education. In a time when 33 million people are living with aids and 20% end up with herpes, people need to know the risks.

If there are classes out there teaching 4th graders how to use a condom without their parents knowing, I would be shocked. I agree that would be sheer lunacy.

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by LAN

That does not matter. As a parent, I have the right to raise my child according to my beliefs, not yours.

Yeah you do, within the law -- as Bob said.

But ... but ... what if your child rebels?

I understand that "teenage rebellion" is a far from new phenomenon -- indeed, it may have been around for at least 50 years.

Better safe than sorry?

Now I'm wondering whether any child has ever sued his/her 'rents because he/she got an STD and "Mom & Dad never gave me -- how you say? -- the 'skinny'"?

BTW, as an atheist I'm not sure whether the things I believe actually count as "beliefs".

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by iltos

... what was the abstinence policy supposed to accomplish, that some other form of birth control wasn't? ...

It wasn't supposed to accomplish anything in relation to birth control. It was supposed to accomplish -- morality. IMO.

[johnnyburst79]

Originally Posted by Farmgirl22

We have a sex-crazed society...every aspect of our lives is battered with it. TV, Internet, billboards, clothing, magazines--everything that we come into contact with has some essence of sexual reference. With all that, how do we expect our kids to ignore it and pretend that it's not happening and that they aren't supposed to partake? Regardless of how well you teach a child, they are going to rebel about something--do you really want to look the fool when it's sex that they choose? Do you really want them to be the ones with a ruined life because of an uncurable disease or burdened with a child before they are ready?

This society is not sex-crazed. It is sexually repressed. Last month I posted here I was going to a clothes optional beach and at least one member expressed surprise that there was such a place in the United States. Sex is taboo here which is WHY it is such a big deal. It is not discussed and for some reason it is not accepted as a natural human instinct.

Sex does not equate to disease. It does not equate to unwanted child birth. It can, but by accepting that sex is something which has been happening for thousands of years, ever since people became teenagers, and that your children and my children will partake in it at their leisure. The LEAST we can do is inform them as to what dangers their are and hope that the we have educated our children as best as possible for the world and all it offers.

Originally Posted by Farmgirl22

I don't think taking sex education out of school is the answer to our problems--nor do I think throwing condoms at teens is the answer either. I think that a well-rounded education program IS the answer. Promote abstinence without promoting ignorance. Teaching kids about condoms, birth control, & disease doesn't teach them to go out and "get it on" with everyone--abstinence can still be promoted simultaneously if it's done properly.

Sex should not be shoved into a closet. It is a vital part of who we are and to repress our animalistic instincts, human desire, and passion is a repression on ourselves and unhealthy. I'm not advocating orgies on every block by any means but instead to allow ourselves to feel as we were intended to feel.

Originally Posted by bomb #21

It wasn't supposed to accomplish anything in relation to birth control. It was supposed to accomplish -- morality. IMO.

Morality is achieved even with a lack of government involvement. I fail to comprehend how this government has the gall to tell children and adults in America and overseas to be abstinent for safety's sake while killing tens of thousands of people overseas.

It is the individual that promotes morality, not the various churches. They promote inherent human characteristics, not something only achieved by believing in any number of invisible men in the sky. You can promote the same thing at home.

[NICK G]

This society is not sex-crazed. It is sexually repressed.

I may be older than some or younger than some but here's a couple things I know.
When I was in the 6th grade my teacher, whom we all adored, had to leave.
The reason? We weren't told. Found out much later she was pregnant.
Good Grief, we can't have a pregnant woman around our children.
Ok, so that's changed.
I was stationed in Germany '71-'74. Completely different concept of sex and how it appeared
on TV, mags, news, etc. Completely uninhibited. My young son was exposed to that.
Did it help or hurt? Hey, he's great, married, couple kids, everything roses.
Point...times change, people change, circumstances change, rules change, laws change.
Do all Catholics still use the rhythm method? Not all the ones I know.
"Kids" grow up, it seems, much faster these days. I can base this on what I see/hear
from my grandchildren as opposed to my own children versus when I was a kid.
There is no magic age of information. 2 year olds are taught about strangers.
5 year olds need to hear about sex.
(These views and opinions are not necessarily those of the management.)