|
Sex education in schools (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Yes, but Theresa is proposing that obviously isn't the answer, seeing as how we have all these oversexed kiddies running around; that these programs, touching on sexual intercourse/masturbation/etc. need to be introduced much earlier. |
 |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
|
Maybe I misread. So I'll ask Theresa: how young should a child learn about intercourse? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Yes, but Theresa is proposing that obviously isn't the answer, seeing as how we have all these oversexed kiddies running around; that these programs, touching on sexual intercourse/masturbation/etc. need to be introduced much earlier. |
It sounds like Theresa started puberty earlier than most people. Although I've heard the claim that puberty begins earlier in modern kids, which needs validating and then understanding if we're to start meaningful sex ed when puberty begins. |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
It sounds like Theresa started puberty earlier than most people. Although I've heard the claim that puberty begins earlier in modern kids, which needs validating and then understanding if we're to start meaningful sex ed when puberty begins. |
That would be interesting. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Unfortunately, kids will be kids. We can't turn them into freakishly mature individuals unless we strip them of their childhood by introducing to them adult-oriented materials. Do you know why those other subjects aren't taboo/funny? Because they don't involve any human understanding of what most will, because of their tender age, invariably find funny and awkward. |
I disagree. It becomes funny and awkward because we give the impression that it should be awkward when we avoid addressing it with our kids. Not to mention that a lot of the time, the people teaching it are clearly uncomfortable, further adding to the awkward vibe. When we ask a 4-5 year old "do you have to go poo/pee?" they don't start giggling uncontrollably and yelling "HAHA YOU SAID POO!" (Or at least most well adjusted kids don't). Why? Because we haven't given them a reason to think that it is funny/awkward/weird to talk about things like that.
You seem to give kids very little credit. They are far more intelligent and capable of being mature than most people seem to realize. You can tell a 10 year old about body parts and so long as you don't make it seem like its a touchy/uncomfortable subject, they wont treat it that way. They form their attitudes about subjects like sex from what they learn from those around them.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
And you keep using that word, "taboo"? Sex is no longer taboo. |
Again, I disagree. If sex wasn't taboo, or a controversial subject, this wouldn't be a problem to begin with. Sex is something normal, just like every other function of the human body, and yet we don't want to even broach the subject with our kids at all. There is a stigmatization of sex in our society... we're afraid of it, and it's ridiculous.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
They shouldn't give a about it. Sure, they can broach the subject , then go on with their lives. The reason why we have all these 10/11 year olds so sexually active is, I'm sure, because of that oversexed media. So you propose that we install programs that are generally designed for adolescents at the ages 15/16 to 6/7 years old in school to battle a problem that we humans initially created? |
Oversexed media and a plethora of information easily accessible by the click of a button. Kids are bombarded by sexual content every single day (just like we are). It only makes sense that they are going to be curious about it. We certainly aren't going to change the way media has evolved, so yes, we need to teach kids how to battle a problem we created. The fact that you even question that seems preposterous to me. We created the problem of having alcohol, drugs, bad drivers etc. etc. should we not give kids the important information they need to cope with these things?
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
And, please, don't give me that "ideal" world tripe. I know kids are not the sweet innocent angels their parents make them out to be. But it would behoove the parenting community to grow a back and start tackling that subject that they, as parents, are responsible for. |
Again, parents aren't as cut out for teaching their kids about sex as one might hope they would be. Most of them didn't get any sexual education either, and they don't have the resources and education tools that a formal institution may have. Further, many parents wont even talk about it because it is 'dirty'/against their religion/blah blah blah etc. It would be awesome if parents bestowed all of the knowledge that their kids need upon them, but it doesn't happen and its completely ignorant to keep suggesting that this is a solution (when it is VERY obvious that it has not worked thus far). If parents really want to be involved, they can get the curriculum material and decide if they want their kids to attend the classes. They can choose to give additional information at home, or choose to teach their own versions entirely. Sex ed. isn't mandatory, so I don't see why people should be flipping out about it. Let the people who want it, have access to it, and those who don't, exercise their right to take their kids out of the class. Problem solved.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Yes, but Theresa is proposing that obviously isn't the answer, seeing as how we have all these oversexed kiddies running around; that these programs, touching on sexual intercourse/masturbation/etc. need to be introduced much earlier. |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Maybe I misread. So I'll ask Theresa: how young should a child learn about intercourse? |
I think that sexual intercourse should be discussed by grade 5, mastrubation and sexuality in general in grade 4, and learning about the organs and the process of puberty in grade 3 (but also discussed in grade 4). Grade 5 (which is about 10 and 11 years old,) IS in fact the age in which kids are starting to experiment and become sexually active. It only makes sense to acknowledge this and start teaching them about it at this age. Not to mention, girls are starting to get their periods at ages as early as 8-10 years old... again, validating the education on puberty a little earlier.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
It sounds like Theresa started puberty earlier than most people. Although I've heard the claim that puberty begins earlier in modern kids, which needs validating and then understanding if we're to start meaningful sex ed when puberty begins. |
I started my period just shortly after my 12th birthday. A friend of mine got her period when she was 10! Her sister got it when she was 11, while another friend of mine didn't get hers until she was closer to 13. Kids are hitting puberty at younger ages because of our diets etc. which means kids are starting to become sexual sooner. This, in my opinion, calls for education about the whole thing to happen BEFORE they are capable of getting pregnant. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by RandomGirl
Kids are hitting puberty at younger ages because of our diets etc. which means kids are starting to become sexual sooner. This, in my opinion, calls for education about the whole thing to happen BEFORE they are capable of getting pregnant. |
You don't give a kid a gun, wait a while and THEN teach them how to use it. You teach them before you give it to them to make sure they understand it, know how to use it properly and more importantly, how to be safe with it.
At the end of the day, if I ever have kids (which I wont), but in the bizarre event that I do, I will absolutely teach my children about sexuality as early as they are able to comprehend it, despite whatever the schools do. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
You don't give a kid a gun, wait a while and THEN teach them how to use it. You teach them before you give it to them to make sure they understand it, know how to use it properly and more importantly, how to be safe with it. |
I'm not sure the analogy holds up under scrutiny in support of your argument (which I'm not disputing with you). Letting a child have access to a weapon which can kill someone with a 90% certainty, is a lot different than the sexual biology (which rarely kills but can definitely pose some life-changing predicaments) that they grow into by default.
Regardless, I think all children should be taught muzzle discipline, how to breach the fatal funnel, and how to attain the dominant position in any room. :D |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
I'm not sure the analogy holds up under scrutiny in support of your argument (which I'm not disputing with you). Letting a child have access to a weapon which can kill someone with a 90% certainty, is a lot different than the sexual biology (which rarely kills but can definitely pose some life-changing predicaments) that they grow into by default.
Regardless, I think all children should be taught muzzle discipline, how to breach the fatal funnel, and how to attain the dominant position in any room. :D |
Obviously the comparison isn't perfect, but it illustrates the point that you shouldn't wait until after the fact to teach them about something that can completely change a life forever.
10 and 11 year old girls having babies is a huuuuuge life changing event, and could have potentially caused them severe health problems (dying through pregnancy, damaging the organs and becoming infertile, getting an STD, being 10 and having to take care of a baby! or whatever). In both cases, the consequences of not being informed about the situation can be dire and IMO, can only be chalked up to complete stupidity for ignoring it to begin with. |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I disagree. It becomes funny and awkward because we give the impression that it should be awkward when we avoid addressing it with our kids. Not to mention that a lot of the time, the people teaching it are clearly uncomfortable, further adding to the awkward vibe. When we ask a 4-5 year old "do you have to go poo/pee?" they don't start giggling uncontrollably and yelling "HAHA YOU SAID POO!" (Or at least most well adjusted kids don't). Why? Because we haven't given them a reason to think that it is funny/awkward/weird to talk about things like that.
|
Really? So you're saying that telling children that they ought to keep their junk in their pants is wrong? Of course sex will become awkward to address; because, for a child, sex is awkward no matter how much you educate them. Are you suggesting that children, because they have had some advanced degree Sex Ed., should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they, at those ages where being a kid is all about unadulterated fun, decide to have sex, when the last thing they should be entertaining in their mind is sex?
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
You seem to give kids very little credit. They are far more intelligent and capable of being mature than most people seem to realize. You can tell a 10 year old about body parts and so long as you don't make it seem like its a touchy/uncomfortable subject, they wont treat it that way. They form their attitudes about subjects like sex from what they learn from those around them.
|
I think you're being foolishly idealistic, even if your intentions do seem well. I think you have forgotten what the idea of being a child is supposed to be. You want to battle a problem that's been propagated by ourselves at the expense of taking away what's supposed to be a period in our lives that is free from "any" adult-related worry. You'll say that introducing a complex idea like sex into a child's life won't do much, if any, harm. No, such an introduction won't turn them into raving sex-addicts, but if sex is introduced at any early age, overtime there will probably be a common acceptance that sex is simply a normal part of a child's life, that because they are educated, they have that freedom, as we adults do, to give their consent to a prospective partner. Which, I'm sure, you'd be fine with (correct me if I'm wrong). But, honestly, I think you're grossly misguided and letting your not-so comfortable experiences and emotions get the best of your common sense.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Again, I disagree. If sex wasn't taboo, or a controversial subject, this wouldn't be a problem to begin with. Sex is something normal, just like every other function of the human body, and yet we don't want to even broach the subject with our kids at all. There is a stigmatization of sex in our society... we're afraid of it, and it's ridiculous.
|
"stigmatization of sex". Are you serious? You're going to agree with me that there is in fact an overflow of sex in the media and persist to tell me that sex is a taboo? I'll agree with you that our handling of that problem is perhaps inept, but what I won't agree with is your suggestion that our parents should be given a handout from the institution.
I don't care how incompetent some parents might be. Tough . It's not in the school's authority to become a surrogate and expert in the "sex talk". You also say that I'm not giving these kids "enough" credit, and yet I'm constantly suggesting that kids, as humans, are capable of understanding on their own, through the proper experience and parental guidance (however much of a pittance it might be), what sex is; and have enough sense in eventually forming a mature perspective of sex and their sexuality.
Children are children. Let them remain so until adolescence kicks in. Sex Ed. is not the answer and "ultimately" serves no purpose. It'll aid to some degree those who are precocious enough, as you've vouched, to fend for themselves, and it'll simply be ignored by those kids who, with or without the program, are still going to grow to be individuals who aren't sensible enough to keep it in their pants.
You also said earlier that "something" is still something. Well, I got news for you: a "little" something isn't going to mean diddly squat when the problem, with or without the implementation of a compulsory Sex Education, becomes too great. See, then you'd be living in an ideal world.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Oversexed media and a plethora of information easily accessible by the click of a button. Kids are bombarded by sexual content every single day (just like we are). It only makes sense that they are going to be curious about it. We certainly aren't going to change the way media has evolved, so yes, we need to teach kids how to battle a problem we created. The fact that you even question that seems preposterous to me. We created the problem of having alcohol, drugs, bad drivers etc. etc. should we not give kids the important information they need to cope with these things?
|
I am not questioning that we should battle the problem. I am, however, questioning your proposal. And, like many have agreed, curiosity does not automatically mean children will engage in sex. Curiosity in anything, for that matter, won't guarantee an appropriate action. So now you're becoming redundant.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Again, parents aren't as cut out for teaching their kids about sex as one might hope they would be. Most of them didn't get any sexual education either, and they don't have the resources and education tools that a formal institution may have. Further, many parents wont even talk about it because it is 'dirty'/against their religion/blah blah blah etc. It would be awesome if parents bestowed all of the knowledge that their kids need upon them, but it doesn't happen and its completely ignorant to keep suggesting that this is a solution (when it is VERY obvious that it has not worked thus far). If parents really want to be involved, they can get the curriculum material and decide if they want their kids to attend the classes. They can choose to give additional information at home, or choose to teach their own versions entirely. Sex ed. isn't mandatory, so I don't see why people should be flipping out about it. Let the people who want it, have access to it, and those who don't, exercise their right to take their kids out of the class. Problem solved.
|
So what? Now you're giving children the edge over their parents? You tell me I give children no credit, yet I do; and here you seem to be giving--quite conveniently, too--no credit whatsoever to a fullgrown human being, who, I'll agree, "may or may not" handle this particular subject well with their children, but, as parents, are obligated to nonetheless.
I'm sorry, but you can't just wave a magic wand over the earth and suddenly do away with that key obligation we have to our children.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I think that sexual intercourse should be discussed by grade 5, mastrubation and sexuality in general in grade 4, and learning about the organs and the process of puberty in grade 3 (but also discussed in grade 4). Grade 5 (which is about 10 and 11 years old,) IS in fact the age in which kids are starting to experiment and become sexually active. It only makes sense to acknowledge this and start teaching them about it at this age. Not to mention, girls are starting to get their periods at ages as early as 8-10 years old... again, validating the education on puberty a little earlier.
|
For this, I'll defer to SYSTEM-J:
| quote: |
Although I've heard the claim that puberty begins earlier in modern kids, which needs validating and then understanding if we're to start meaningful sex ed when puberty begins.
|
Who knows? But until it's official that this is, in fact, becoming a universal phenomenon, and not some flash-in-the-pan accident in human history, I'll maintain that the job ultimately falls upon the parents, not some new curriculum in elementary/middle school. |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Obviously the comparison isn't perfect, but it illustrates the point that you shouldn't wait until after the fact to teach them about something that can completely change a life forever. |
You're not illustrating anything if the comparisons are farfetched, because one outcome of one scenario does not coincide with the other. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Really? So you're saying that telling children that they ought to keep their junk in their pants is wrong?
|
No, I didn't suggest that at all and cannot figure out how you could possibly come to that conclusion.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Of course sex will become awkward to address; because, for a child, sex is awkward no matter how much you educate them. |
Again, disagree with it being awkward. It isn't awkward unless they are taught that it is. Kids don't innately believe things to be awkward or not awkward... they learn how to form opinions about subjects from other experiences.
| quote: | | Originally posted by R.j. Are you suggesting that children, because they have had some advanced degree Sex Ed., should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they, at those ages where being a kid is all about unadulterated fun, decide to have sex, when the last thing they should be entertaining in their mind is sex? |
Ummm no. Again, not sure how you are coming to that conclusion. Studies have shown that comprehensive sexual education does not encourage kids to have sex at earlier ages. Read this:
http://std.about.com/od/prevention/...encompsexed.htm
Education helps those who are going to have sex at earlier ages to be smart about it.
| quote: | | Originally posted by R.j. I think you're being foolishly idealistic, even if your intentions do seem well. I think you have forgotten what the idea of being a child is supposed to be. |
Being a child is a time of learning, growing, and experiencing life. It's also a time where they are not burdened with bills and responsibilities, so they are able to have more carefree fun. Learning about sexuality only aids their growth and learning.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
You want to battle a problem that's been propagated by ourselves at the expense of taking away what's supposed to be a period in our lives that is free from "any" adult-related worry. You'll say that introducing a complex idea like sex into a child's life won't do much, if any, harm. No, such an introduction won't turn them into raving sex-addicts, but if sex is introduced at any early age, overtime there will probably be a common acceptance that sex is simply a normal part of a child's life, that because they are educated, they have that freedom, as we adults do, to give their consent to a prospective partner. Which, I'm sure, you'd be fine with (correct me if I'm wrong). |
Your choice to call it "adult-related worry" shows that we have entirely different attitudes about sexuality. Sexuality is a normal thing, just like learning how to use the toilet, or how to cross the road, kids should learn about their bodies and what is happening to them. Again, it is proven that sex ed. does not encourage kids to be sexually active and studies have shown that both pregnancies and STD rates drop when comprehensive sex ed. is taught. So your theory proposing otherwise is unfounded.
I do not think 10-11 year old kids should be having sex, no... but it doesn't negate the fact that it is happening. What anyone wants or thinks is right doesn't change reality. At least sex ed. will help them make better decisions about it.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
But, honestly, I think you're grossly misguided and letting your not-so comfortable experiences and emotions get the best of your common sense. |
Misguided? I am going off of academic studies... more than what you are bringing to the table of this discussion. Also, what makes you think I have had "not-so comfortable experiences"? Are you referring to the fact that I mentioned I got sexual education and think it was a detriment to my growth, and as such, think we should prevent that from happening to others? Don't think this is a sign that my common sense is being bested, but that I have learned from the mistakes of others in my own experiences and don't wish it to continue.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
"stigmatization of sex". Are you serious? You're going to agree with me that there is in fact an overflow of sex in the media and persist to tell me that sex is a taboo? I'll agree with you that our handling of that problem is perhaps inept, but what I won't agree with is your suggestion that our parents should be given a handout from the institution. |
LOL how can you play so dumb about this!? Yes, sexual images are shown, but we are by no means showing straight on ing. Porn is hidden in stores, and frowned upon, but at the very same time, we allow kids to watch shows about murder, war, killing/torture etc. etc. We blur out breasts/butts/penises and vaginas, but show graphic images of people being stabbed to death etc. We don't openly talk about sex, even though it is everywhere around us.
"handout from the institution"? Are you kidding me!? The whole ing education system is a handout from the institution! Arguably, parents should be solely responsible for the entire education of their children, but we acknowledged a long time ago that parents were not capable of doing this! Sexual education is the same damn thing as math or science. If we teach one, there is no reason we should not teach the other... and again, the only reason it becomes an issue is because there is a stigmatization because sex is so heavily associated to "morals". Besides, parents are not prevented from teaching those "morals" etc. because the school is teaching it. Just like parents can't teach about their religions in contrast to what the school teaches in Science (much of which contravenes religious views).
| quote: | | Originally posted by R.j. I don't care how incompetent some parents might be. Tough . It's not in the school's authority to become a surrogate and expert in the "sex talk". You also say that I'm not giving these kids "enough" credit, and yet I'm constantly suggesting that kids, as humans, are capable of understanding on their own, through the proper experience and parental guidance (however much of a pittance it might be), what sex is; and have enough sense in eventually forming a mature perspective of sex and their sexuality. |
Then they should also stop teaching kids science, and math, and how to use proper grammar because they should not become a surrogate and expert in how to "speak properly" or how to count either! You are obviously putting sexual education into its own separate category from education in general because of your own moral biases surrounding it. Sex is sex is sex. Remove your moral stigmas from it, and it's just another subject that needs to be learned about. You want to add morality to it, then teach that at home and leave the teachers to educate them in facts.
Also, to say that kids are capable of understanding on their own is just so beyond stupid, I don't know how to respond. Kids are not just going to figure out on their own that sex can get them pregnant, that they can get STDs etc. etc. Leaving it up to chance that they will somehow have a divine realization about what sex does is more hazardous than the potential fearful things you propose might happen from teaching them about it.
| quote: | | Originally posted by R.j. Children are children. Let them remain so until adolescence kicks in. Sex Ed. is not the answer and "ultimately" serves no purpose. It'll aid to some degree those who are precocious enough, as you've vouched, to fend for themselves, and it'll simply be ignored by those kids who, with or without the program, are still going to grow to be individuals who aren't sensible enough to keep it in their pants. |
No, it does in fact "ultimately" serve a purpose. MANY academic studies have proven this. If you want to ignore studies and the educated people who have dedicated their lives to studying this topic and pretend that what they have come up with is garbage, fine, but I think you're just being ignorant.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
You also said earlier that "something" is still something. Well, I got news for you: a "little" something isn't going to mean diddly squat when the problem, with or without the implementation of a compulsory Sex Education, becomes too great. See, then you'd be living in an ideal world.
|
In the U.S. when they changed sex ed. to be abstinence only, pregnancies and STD rates increased over 100%. This isn't just a little number. 30,000 unwanted pregnancies in the grand scheme of things is a "little something" that I think is absolutely worth the education to prevent.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
I am not questioning that we should battle the problem. I am, however, questioning your proposal. And, like many have agreed, curiosity does not automatically mean children will engage in sex. Curiosity in anything, for that matter, won't guarantee an appropriate action. So now you're becoming redundant. |
Just because it doesn't infer that they will automatically engage in sex, does not however infer that they are not forming opinions and attitudes about it. Kids learn a lot of stupid on the playground like "you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex", "you can't get a disease from oral sex", "you can't get pregnant from anal sex", "you can't get pregnant while you're on your period" etc. etc. The amount of misinformation that floats around is enormous, and as such, it only makes sense to combat that with fact. For those that do end up becoming sexually active, at least they have the tools to make educated decisions.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j. So what? Now you're giving children the edge over their parents? You tell me I give children no credit, yet I do; and here you seem to be giving--quite conveniently, too--no credit whatsoever to a fullgrown human being, who, I'll agree, "may or may not" handle this particular subject well with their children, but, as parents, are obligated to nonetheless.
I'm sorry, but you can't just wave a magic wand over the earth and suddenly do away with that key obligation we have to our children. |
No. I am saying that many parents wont teach their kids at all. Many who will try, will just re-tell misinformation, and others will not be able to do it effectively because they don't have good educative resources. Many will eliminate important information entirely. None of this is helpful to a confused, misinformed child who is curious and has questions.
Parents are obligated to teach their kids morals, values etc. but in our society, we have removed the obligation for them to teach their kids everything they need to know because we are aware that they don't do it very well. This is why schools exist to begin with. If you think one part of education should solely be taught by parents, then by that logic, so should everything. Teach your kids morals and values about sex, but let the formal education teach the factual portion about it. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| This thread sucks. |
|
|
|
|
