|
Sex education in schools (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
But has the quality of the knowledge improved or have we merely discarded sustainable wisdom for largely superficial trim?
We've been to the moon, and seen the nether regions of the universe, but we're still too stupid to solve issues like overpopulation and the human-created demise of our ecology and environment. If anything, our so-called advancements have exacerbated our most pressing issues.
Science got us into this mess, wonder if it can get us out of it. |
Im not talking about the mankind’s achievements. Im talking about each and every common man’s ability to utilise their intelligence. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Well, I respectfully disagree. Why would anyone want to rob children of their childhood by introducing such a complex and often times burdening concept such as sex?
13, I'm more comfortable, but highly ambivalent.
As I said, I'm not against the teaching of anatomy for children who are in their preteens. A brush upon the "intercourse" subject is, of course, necessary, because, as you said, the insinuation then becomes that sex is a dirty thing. It is, however, not the subject we want our teenagers TOO preoccupied with; and therefore we should introduce a more thorough study of the subject much later in high school.
But, again, I'll maintain that Sex Ed. is pretty much useless in the long run. |
Teaching children about their bodies and how they are used is not robbing them of their childhood. That is ridiculous. Also, sex is not that complex and I cannot fathom why it would be such a burdening concept unless they were being abused in some way.
I would make a bet that most people knew of sex around 7 to 10, and that children these days learn about it around 6 to 8. Waiting until they are 13 is pushing it. I had my period when I was 12, and had sex for the first time when I was 15. You wait until 13 and many females will have already started their menstrual cycle... something they should be aware of far before they get it.
Too preoccupied with it? A one hour class a day for a semester is by no means going to make them preoccupied with it. Not to mention, our society is obsessed with sex, so it only makes sense to address it from an educational standpoint. I would argue that, like Lira suggested, it would be more beneficial to address sexuality in behavioural studies, social theories etc. into the highschool years. Kids need to understand the hyper-sexualization that goes on in media.
Pretty much useless!? Good grief. While I agree it would not completely eradicate STDs and unwanted pregnancies, studies have proven over and over again that the more sexual education one gets, the less likely they are to encounter these issues. |
|
|
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Teaching children about their bodies and how they are used is not robbing them of their childhood. |
children are children, they should be playing with ing toys and doing much more important like studying french and playing the piano. This will not be taken seriously at that age, it's not like they will take a sex ed class and not anymore or make stupid decisions. Sex ed should be a priority when kids become sexually active, around grade 9+ for example which is the way it is now and it was still a joke when i was in highschool, didn't really teach me .
"Ontario's Catholic Premier made it clear that all public schools must teach the lessons that will start with those as young as 6" - this is ing stupid seriously, there are much more important things kids need to know than to find out what vagina is for. (eating people, making noises etc) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I would argue that, like Lira suggested, it would be more beneficial to address sexuality in behavioural studies, social theories etc. into the highschool years. Kids need to understand the hyper-sexualization that goes on in media. |
Actually, I meant to say they needed to study some of the stuff from the social sciences because there's "sex education", but there's nothing like "society education", "mind education", "language education" (telling kids not to end sentences with prepositions is a joke)... approaching sex in these other areas would be a good idea, but I don't think they'd be restricted to bonkology. |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Teaching children about their bodies and how they are used is not robbing them of their childhood. That is ridiculous. |
Teaching children about their bodies does not rob them of their childhood. I never said that it did.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Also, sex is not that complex and I cannot fathom why it would be such a burdening concept unless they were being abused in some way.
|
I'm not saying the act is complex. But the concept is complex. If it's not complex, then what use does Sex Ed. serve?
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I would make a bet that most people knew of sex around 7 to 10, and that children these days learn about it around 6 to 8. Waiting until they are 13 is pushing it. I had my period when I was 12, and had sex for the first time when I was 15. You wait until 13 and many females will have already started their menstrual cycle... something they should be aware of far before they get it.
|
Yes, the kids know what sex is. But does that automatically mean they're going to engage in sex? Now, if kids know about it, what more than a simple one-on-one conversation between parent and child about their engaging in sex is needed? Or even a highschool level one-off class session?
Parents must be more involved.
The menstrual cycle deals with anatomy, not intercourse. edit: Well okay: it does, but I don't think that one needs a detailed study of sex to understand the menstrual cycle.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Too preoccupied with it? A one hour class a day for a semester is by no means going to make them preoccupied with it. Not to mention, our society is obsessed with sex, so it only makes sense to address it from an educational standpoint. I would argue that, like Lira suggested, it would be more beneficial to address sexuality in behavioural studies, social theories etc. into the highschool years. Kids need to understand the hyper-sexualization that goes on in media.
|
If it's there, they will be preoccupied, especially since the media makes it so appealing. They need to understand that the media, for the most part, portrays a grossly exaggerated representation of human sexuality and the gratification that comes with it.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Pretty much useless!? Good grief. While I agree it would not completely eradicate STDs and unwanted pregnancies, studies have proven over and over again that the more sexual education one gets, the less likely they are to encounter these issues. |
In the long run. That's my supposition. I could be wrong. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
children are children, they should be playing with ing toys and doing much more important like studying french and playing the piano. This will not be taken seriously at that age, it's not like they will take a sex ed class and not anymore. Sex ed should be a priority when kids become sexually active, around grade 9+ for example which is the way it is now and it was still a joke when i was in highschool, didn't really teach me .
"Ontario's Catholic Premier made it clear that all public schools must teach the lessons that will start with those as young as 6" - this is ing stupid seriously, there are much more important things kids need to know than to find out what vagina is for. (eating people, making noises etc) |
You must be so far removed from reality that I am unsure if anything I say will make you understand. You think 8 year old kids are *just* playing with toys and being totally innocent? When I was 8, I specifically remember talking about sex, and discovering pornographic magazines and being curious about it with my peers. This is far more likely to happen with the internet and the societal obsession of sex.
So why ignore the fact that these kids are aware of it? It is better to teach them the truth about sex instead of letting them form ideas with their friends and believing in myths that may carry with them to adulthood. Have you ever heard of "you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex", or "you can't get pregnant if you have sex on your period", or "wearing two condoms is better than just wearing one" etc. etc.? Ignorance doesn't do anything good and putting it off doesn't help anything either. You aren't preserving their innocence at all, because news flash, sex is everywhere in our society. They will find out about it one way or another.
Also, why do you think kids didn't take sexual education seriously? Probably because it was this taboo topic that remained a mystery until you were some magical age where it was ok to learn about it. It was embarrassing for the kids and the teachers, making it a big joke. Didn't 'teach you ' probably because the curriculum is complete garbage and attempts to sugarcoat the entire subject and avoid anything that might be of any serious interest.
You expect children to know what their arms, and legs are and what those are used for at the age of 6. Why can't they know what the vagina and penis is?
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you should tell a bunch of 7 year olds about intercourse, but it should certainly be the time that they know about the basic anatomy and about sexuality in general.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Yes, the kids know what sex is. But does that automatically mean they're going to engage in sex? Now, if kids know about it, what more than a simple one-in-one conversation between parent and child about their engaging in sex is needed? Or even a highschool level one-off class session?
Parents must be more involved.
|
No, it does not automatically mean they're going to have sex, but that also does not mean that they aren't going to be curious about it. Kids don't necessarily feel comfortable asking about such topics, and a lot of parents don't either. Not to mention, as I already said, parents will likely re-tell misinformation or omit stuff entirely.
I had sex for the first time when I was 15. I know a lot of people who had sex earlier than that. High school typically starts around 14. Don't you think waiting until they are in high school is a little late? Attitudes about sex and myths have already been formed and accepted. Kids have already started to experiment etc.
Also, as much as I think it would be awesome if parents were more involved with their children, and what they learn, the reality is, they aren't. AND again, they often are ignorant themselves.
| quote: | | Originally posted by geroin If it's there, they will be preoccupied, especially since the media makes it so appealing. They need to understand that the media, for the most part, portrays a grossly exaggerated representation of human sexuality and the gratification that comes with it. |
I disagree with them being preoccupied with it, but I do agree that they should be aware of how it is portrayed in media.
I want to reiterate that I don't think we should be teaching 7-8 year olds about intercourse and anal etc. I just think sexual education should begin at that age, started with anatomy and moving up. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
children are children, they should be playing with ing toys and doing much more important like studying french and playing the piano. This will not be taken seriously at that age, it's not like they will take a sex ed class and not anymore or make stupid decisions. Sex ed should be a priority when kids become sexually active, around grade 9+ for example which is the way it is now and it was still a joke when i was in highschool, didn't really teach me .
"Ontario's Catholic Premier made it clear that all public schools must teach the lessons that will start with those as young as 6" - this is ing stupid seriously, there are much more important things kids need to know than to find out what vagina is for. (eating people, making noises etc) |
I also wanted to make a point of saying that teaching kids about sex when they are already sexually active is a little moronic. AND as it was already said, the more sexual education, the less unwanted pregnancies and STDs. So perhaps they wont "take a sex ed class and not anymore or make stupid decisions", but more of them will make smarter decisions about it. |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
No, it does not automatically mean they're going to have sex, but that also does not mean that they aren't going to be curious about it. Kids don't necessarily feel comfortable asking about such topics, and a lot of parents don't either. Not to mention, as I already said, parents will likely re-tell misinformation or omit stuff entirely.
|
But you're missing my point. It's a responsibility of the parent to adequately impart to their children the sex information among other life's important issues. Just because it's an embarrassing situation doesn't exempt the parents from that responsibility or extenuate the fallacy that is theirs when they misinform their children.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I had sex for the first time when I was 15. I know a lot of people who had sex earlier than that. High school typically starts around 14. Don't you think waiting until they are in high school is a little late? Attitudes about sex and myths have already been formed and accepted. Kids have already started to experiment etc.
|
Yes. That's because of this bull, miserable and ever-declining contemporary period we live in and keep perpetuating because of the change of some social condition. So how do we cope with it in respect to children and the sexual climate? Why, we undermine the parent's role, effectively giving them a free-ticket from their responsibility by placing that responsibility upon institutions. That's what I have a problem with.
Funny enough, I first had sex when I was fifteen, too. How is that we have different views? :wtf: |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I also wanted to make a point of saying that teaching kids about sex when they are already sexually active is a little moronic. AND as it was already said, the more sexual education, the less unwanted pregnancies and STDs. So perhaps they wont "take a sex ed class and not anymore or make stupid decisions", but more of them will make smarter decisions about it. |
Yes, more will. But "more" isn't really anything
edit:
Look, you'll argue that more is something, then we'll be at that impasse forever. So let's just respectfully disagree with each other and move on. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
But you're missing my point. It's a responsibility of the parent to adequately impart to their children the sex information among other life's important issues. Just because it's an embarrassing situation doesn't exempt the parents from that responsibility or extenuate the fallacy that is theirs when they misinform their children.
Yes. That's because of this bull, miserable and ever-declining contemporary period we live in and keep perpetuating because of the change of some social condition. So how do we cope with it in respect to children and the sexual climate? Why, we undermine parent's role, effectively giving them a free-ticket from their responsibility by placing that responsibility upon institutions. That's what I have a problem with.
|
Why isn't it the parents responsibility to teach their children everything then? Shouldn't they also teach their kids math, and science too? Sexuality is just another normal subject that should be taught along with all the other subjects, and it seems like we think the education system is capable of doing that relatively well. It's the stigmatization of sexuality that makes people think otherwise, and those people are the ones who are not going to teach their kids about sexuality, or teach them the wrong stuff/omit stuff.
Parents have the right to disallow their children from attending the classes too, so it isn't like they are being removed from the process. They can intervene, even if it is a disservice to their children.
Again, in an ideal world, parents would teach their kids the important things they need to know... but it doesn't happen. Sexual education = less STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Not to mention that just because the school teaches about sexual education, it doesn't mean the parents can't also teach their kids about it. Just like science and religion... the school teaches about science, and many parents teach about religion at home. Much of those 2 contradict each other, but at least the child is educated and can make decisions based off what they know.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Yes, more will. But "more" isn't really anything
More is better than nothing. |
EDIT:
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
edit:
Look, you'll argue that more is something, then we'll be at that impasse forever. So let's just respectfully disagree with each other and move on. |
Okie dokie. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Funny enough, I first had sex when I was fifteen, too. How is that we have different views? :wtf: |
I first had sex when I was 20, financially stable, and could face the consequences of a seminal accident, you perverts! :mad:
And by seminal I mean semen :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I first had sex when I was 20, financially stable, and could face the consequences of a seminal accident, you perverts! :mad:
And by seminal I mean semen :p |
So, were there any accidents with his semen? |
|
|
|
|
