What's wrong with sex ed?

[GeNome]

This is stemming from another topic here in P&N.

Why is it that the majority of schools offer only pathetic, if any, sex ed course? Is there something wrong with learning about sex? If so, what? It's a natural part of human life..any life, for that matter. It's going to happen, no matter what you do about it (possibly short of something out of 1984), so wouldn't it be better for teens and adolescents to know the dangers/consequences and how to deal with them? Or even prevent them, in a lot of cases. It's really silly to try and push an 'abstinence only' campaign..because it won't work. It's like the proverbial train barreling down the track; you can't stop it. Sure, it's better not to have sex until you're old enough (take that as you will), but that doesn't mean you shouldn't know about it.

And what about contraception? I see a lot of people in my community (mostly religious folk) trying to ban it, or at least make it harder to get at. And these are the same people that want a ban on abortion. Isn't that slightly hypocritical? Or is this just me? :S

 

[BlancoNino]

Too expensive to teach it at school and do a good job at it. I say leave it for the parents. We figured out what sex was before they taught it in school.

 

[GeNome]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Too expensive to teach it at school and do a good job at it. I say leave it for the parents. We figured out what sex was before they taught it in school.

I can't imagine it would cost that much..but correct me if I'm wrong. And as for the parents..that's exactly the reason we should have it taught in schools. To quote Meuge from another topic: "It should be required to graduate middle school". I totally agree. By the time you're entering 9th grade, you're old enough to be taught sex ed. Thurough sex ed too, not some wimpy "this is how it works, the end" kind of thing.

 

[zendari]

Lack of funding. Property taxes are high enough as it is.

You shouldnt be screwing other people if you cant figure out how to put a condom on your dick.

 

[GeNome]

That's the sad part. I would really like to see how much it would cost to give a decent sex ed course in school. Surely no more than the cost of some pointless test, such as our WASL?

And that's exactly the kind of mentality that causes kids to go out not knowing how to put on a condom. It's not as easy as it sounds, especially to do right; I learned that from my course.

 

[BlancoNino]

Well sex becomes less special when it's taught in school. Have our sex problems declined (STDs, Teen pregnancy, etc) since we started teaching sex ed in schools?

 

[zendari]

The cost isn't just money, its time. How much farther behind india and china must we fall in math and science?

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Well sex becomes less special when it's taught in school. Have our sex problems declined (STDs, Teen pregnancy, etc) since we started teaching sex ed in schools?

While there is no correlation to specifically sex ed courses being the root cause. [Link] shows that children are being educated about protection or delaying altogether.

?There is much good news in these results,? said HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. ?More teenagers are avoiding or postponing sexual activity, which can lead to sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancy or emotional and societal responsibilities for which they are not prepared.?

edit:

Originally posted by: zendari
The cost isn't just money, its time. How much farther behind india and china must we fall in math and science?

People tend to not have a great deal of time for studies, when they have children after believing that a condom is all they need to prevent pregnancy...

 

[RightIsWrong]

For Zen and Blanco:

Your histories lend one to believe that you are spouting "it's too costly" because of your complete distaste for any/all govt spending. Please provide some studies or links that give costs of the current and what a more comprehensive course would cost.

My only concern would be the execution of the training. My 3rd grade daughter got a pretty intense discussion on it at her school without our (her parents) knowledge that it was going to take place. Zen was ignorant enough, in a thread on that subject, to state that (paraphrasing) "liberals can't see how bad their ideas are until they have to actually deal with them" without realizing that the idea, comprehensive sex ed, is a great idea. He was just too knee-jerkish to realize that the poor implementation by the REPUBLICAN-run zealots in the bible belt, sh*thole state that I live in was the cause for my outrage.

I agree with you GeNome and Meague. At a later time when the kids are mature enough to actually grasp the true depth of the topic, it should be required.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

There is nothing wrong with sex-ed in school.

The problem comes when parents are not informed of the content or scope of the lesson. Many school districts "just do it" without any regards to the wishes of the parents.

Parents should be advised in detail as to the content of the lessons to be taught and should have the right to have their kids opt out. So long as it is a voluntary issue and the parents are in the loop there shouldn't be any controversy.

As to this argument of it being too expensive... The sex ed I had in highschool was usually a few hours, one day out of the school year. No big deal there.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: TGS

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Well sex becomes less special when it's taught in school. Have our sex problems declined (STDs, Teen pregnancy, etc) since we started teaching sex ed in schools?

While there is no correlation to specifically sex ed courses being the root cause. [Link] shows that children are being educated about protection or delaying altogether.

?There is much good news in these results,? said HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. ?More teenagers are avoiding or postponing sexual activity, which can lead to sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancy or emotional and societal responsibilities for which they are not prepared.?

edit:

Originally posted by: zendari
The cost isn't just money, its time. How much farther behind india and china must we fall in math and science?

People tend to not have a great deal of time for studies, when they have children after believing that a condom is all they need to prevent pregnancy...

And then it goes on to say how much more women are using contraceptives. It's too bad that when teenage girls use contraceptives (like the pill), they are government subsidized. At least they are here.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Well sex becomes less special when it's taught in school. Have our sex problems declined (STDs, Teen pregnancy, etc) since we started teaching sex ed in schools?

I think a more valid question is: How do rates of STDs and teen pregnancy compare between groups (a) provided with comprehensive sex education (abstinence + contraception), (b) provided with less-than-comprehensive programs (abstinence-only or contraception-only), and (c) provided with no sex-ed at all?

If you teach kids about math, they'll learn math. If you don't, they won't. Why does anyone believe that human sexuality and its consequences treated as a subject should be any different?

 

[GeNome]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Well sex becomes less special when it's taught in school. Have our sex problems declined (STDs, Teen pregnancy, etc) since we started teaching sex ed in schools?

Well, obviously something is causing the drop. And how does sex become "less special" when you know how to do it safely? Is it "more special" to accidentally get pregnant, or get infected?

And to Zendari: Yes, math and science is important. But that's not the issue. Time? If the school system was reorganized, there would be plenty of time. We're just inefficient, IMO.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari
Lack of funding. Property taxes are high enough as it is.

You shouldnt be screwing other people if you cant figure out how to put a condom on your dick.

Oh, I see. Kids are supposed to know about sex by osmosis. No teaching required.

Let's use that approach for English, math, the sciences, history, and all the other subjects. too. We could cut our school budgets to zero.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For Zen and Blanco:

Your histories lend one to believe that you are spouting "it's too costly" because of your complete distaste for any/all govt spending. Please provide some studies or links that give costs of the current and what a more comprehensive course would cost.

My only concern would be the execution of the training. My 3rd grade daughter got a pretty intense discussion on it at her school without our (her parents) knowledge that it was going to take place. Zen was ignorant enough, in a thread on that subject, to state that (paraphrasing) "liberals can't see how bad their ideas are until they have to actually deal with them" without realizing that the idea, comprehensive sex ed, is a great idea. He was just too knee-jerkish to realize that the poor implementation by the REPUBLICAN-run zealots in the bible belt, sh*thole state that I live in was the cause for my outrage.

I agree with you GeNome and Meague. At a later time when the kids are mature enough to actually grasp the true depth of the topic, it should be required.

Sex ed out of schools. Seriously, even if they aren't that expensive, we could be using that time to push the actual SMART kids (who know better than to run around like a little whore) into learning better sciences and math...like Zen pointed out.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: TGS

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Well sex becomes less special when it's taught in school. Have our sex problems declined (STDs, Teen pregnancy, etc) since we started teaching sex ed in schools?

While there is no correlation to specifically sex ed courses being the root cause. [Link] shows that children are being educated about protection or delaying altogether.

?There is much good news in these results,? said HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. ?More teenagers are avoiding or postponing sexual activity, which can lead to sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancy or emotional and societal responsibilities for which they are not prepared.?

edit:

Originally posted by: zendari
The cost isn't just money, its time. How much farther behind india and china must we fall in math and science?

People tend to not have a great deal of time for studies, when they have children after believing that a condom is all they need to prevent pregnancy...

And then it goes on to say how much more women are using contraceptives. It's too bad that when teenage girls use contraceptives (like the pill), they are government subsidized. At least they are here.

Which I can say, I would gladly have my tax dollars used to pay for education and prevention, then welfare for a child that cannot support themselves, let alone a child.


edit:

Allow me to cut you off here...

Originally posted by: BlancoNino


Sex ed out of schools. Seriously, even if they aren't that expensive, we could be using that time to push the actual SMART kids (who know better than to run around like a little whore) into learning better sciences and math...like Zen pointed out.

Seeing as how I took sex ed course, I've learned that it takes a male and a female to cause a pregnancy. Did I miss something there? Or is your Son the "stud" that is getting busy with all these little harlots?

 

[GeNome]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For Zen and Blanco:

Your histories lend one to believe that you are spouting "it's too costly" because of your complete distaste for any/all govt spending. Please provide some studies or links that give costs of the current and what a more comprehensive course would cost.

My only concern would be the execution of the training. My 3rd grade daughter got a pretty intense discussion on it at her school without our (her parents) knowledge that it was going to take place. Zen was ignorant enough, in a thread on that subject, to state that (paraphrasing) "liberals can't see how bad their ideas are until they have to actually deal with them" without realizing that the idea, comprehensive sex ed, is a great idea. He was just too knee-jerkish to realize that the poor implementation by the REPUBLICAN-run zealots in the bible belt, sh*thole state that I live in was the cause for my outrage.

I agree with you GeNome and Meague. At a later time when the kids are mature enough to actually grasp the true depth of the topic, it should be required.

Sex ed out of schools. Seriously, even if they aren't that expensive, we could be using that time to push the actual SMART kids (who know better than to run around like a little whore) into learning better sciences and math...like Zen pointed out.

Whoa there. Smart kids? Smart has nothing to do with sex ed. I don't care how smart you are, you need to know the facts and what to do about them. That's what AP classes are for, or at least that's what they're supposed to be for.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Lack of funding. Property taxes are high enough as it is.

You shouldnt be screwing other people if you cant figure out how to put a condom on your dick.

Oh, I see. Kids are supposed to know about sex by osmosis. No teaching required.

Let's use that approach for English, math, the sciences, history, and all the other subjects. too. We could cut our school budgets to zero.

Sex is an instinct. How did man first know what to do with the junk between his legs without a public school teacher?

Also, knowledge on sex doesn't really relate to any job professions. Unless you become a prostitute.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Lack of funding. Property taxes are high enough as it is.

You shouldnt be screwing other people if you cant figure out how to put a condom on your dick.

Oh, I see. Kids are supposed to know about sex by osmosis. No teaching required.

Let's use that approach for English, math, the sciences, history, and all the other subjects. too. We could cut our school budgets to zero.

Sex is an instinct. How did man first know what to do with the junk between his legs without a public school teacher?

Also, knowledge on sex doesn't really relate to any job professions. Unless you become a prostitute.

Ummm.... when did Sex Ed = teaching sex? Unless I'm missing something, you learn that one on your own. Sex Ed is supposed to teach you how to go out and not come back saying "it burns when I pee."

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: TGS

Which I can say, I would gladly have my tax dollars used to pay for education and prevention, then welfare for a child that cannot support themselves, let alone a child.

I'd rather pay for neither, but I've been over that a million times.

Seeing as how I took sex ed course, I've learned that it takes a male and a female to cause a pregnancy. Did I miss something there? Or is your Son the "stud" that is getting busy with all these little harlots?

Men and women can both be whores...unless I'm missing something. Was I unclear with what I said?

 

[GeNome]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Lack of funding. Property taxes are high enough as it is.

You shouldnt be screwing other people if you cant figure out how to put a condom on your dick.

Oh, I see. Kids are supposed to know about sex by osmosis. No teaching required.

Let's use that approach for English, math, the sciences, history, and all the other subjects. too. We could cut our school budgets to zero.

Sex is an instinct. How did man first know what to do with the junk between his legs without a public school teacher?

Also, knowledge on sex doesn't really relate to any job professions. Unless you become a prostitute.

Blanco, you're completely missing all our points. Of course sex is instinctual, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Knowlege about sex, on the other hand, is not. People aren't born knowing how to use provention methods. It's something that has to be taught.

As for your other claim..WTF does that have to do with any of it? O.0

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Strk
Ummm.... when did Sex Ed = teaching sex? Unless I'm missing something, you learn that one on your own. Sex Ed is supposed to teach you how to go out and not come back saying "it burns when I pee."

Learned that from my parents. We can't start trying to idiot-proof personal matters at school...or along will come bigger idiots.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Lack of funding. Property taxes are high enough as it is.

You shouldnt be screwing other people if you cant figure out how to put a condom on your dick.

Oh, I see. Kids are supposed to know about sex by osmosis. No teaching required.

Let's use that approach for English, math, the sciences, history, and all the other subjects. too. We could cut our school budgets to zero.

Sex is an instinct. How did man first know what to do with the junk between his legs without a public school teacher?

Also, knowledge on sex doesn't really relate to any job professions. Unless you become a prostitute.

Isn't learning an instinct? Also, I think sex at it's early stages was used for reproduction, unlike today we are most likely having it for recreational purposes. Along with the last sentence, being disputed by a very lucritive adult business.

You need to dismount the moral high horse and realize that kids and adults alike, take part in sexual activity as a recreational activity *all the time*. In doing so, I believe they *need* to be educated on the pros and cons of engaging in such activies.


edit:

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: TGS

Which I can say, I would gladly have my tax dollars used to pay for education and prevention, then welfare for a child that cannot support themselves, let alone a child.

I'd rather pay for neither, but I've been over that a million times.

Seeing as how I took sex ed course, I've learned that it takes a male and a female to cause a pregnancy. Did I miss something there? Or is your Son the "stud" that is getting busy with all these little harlots?

Men and women can both be whores...unless I'm missing something. Was I unclear with what I said?

I'm fairly certain that ignoring the social issues of not addressing sexual education will be a splendid idea. :roll:

As for the whores comment, I'm fairly certain that everyone would agree that term is typically when related to females only. Though you are still missing the point, sex can be recreational as well as for procreation. You would be a fool to not acknowledge that fact.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Lack of funding. Property taxes are high enough as it is.

You shouldnt be screwing other people if you cant figure out how to put a condom on your dick.

Oh, I see. Kids are supposed to know about sex by osmosis. No teaching required.

Let's use that approach for English, math, the sciences, history, and all the other subjects. too. We could cut our school budgets to zero.

Sex is an instinct. How did man first know what to do with the junk between his legs without a public school teacher?

Also, knowledge on sex doesn't really relate to any job professions. Unless you become a prostitute.

Translation; I've never had sex and probably never will.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: GeNome
Blanco, you're completely missing all our points. Of course sex is instinctual, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Knowlege about sex, on the other hand, is not. People aren't born knowing how to use provention methods. It's something that has to be taught.

As for your other claim..WTF does that have to do with any of it? O.0

I'm saying kids go to school to learn about things that they will need for their future careers. Sex ed, DARE, etc...those things have no place in schools.