In a Perfect World, we wouldn't even need to ask this question. However, since we are far from perfect...
First, I think parents should bear the responsibility of teaching their kids about sex. What we know, though, is that most parents don't. Kids learn about sex from TV (yikes! ) and their likewise uninformed friends (oh no! ). So, unfortunately, most kids never hear anything at all about the risks and dangers of having sex -- and not just the physical aspects, like disease and pregnancy, but the emotional dangers of engaging in sex at a young age and the heartbreak of immorality.
Secondly, I don't think sex education should be taught in public (or private) schools or in church. However, since most parents have abdicated the responsibility and there are no other real choices, I do believe that some education regarding the risks and responsibilities have to be taught.
Sad, but true, in my opinion.
Roz
The point is that parents should be responsible enough to arm their children with correct information and attitudes about sex before 7th grade health class. Like it or not, sex is a big subject in kids' conversation, even much earlier than people think. I specifically remember hearing plenty about it on the playground or wherever before I finished the fifth grade. By the time I finished middle school, it was not shocking to hear about it in the halls. I grew up in a fairly nice, middle-class neighborhood. This was not the inner city.
Yes, sex ed. should be taught, but without editorialization by the teacher. Our health classes often had guest speakers who discussed abstinence and STDs, and parents were informed about the content of the unit, and were given the option to exclude their children from any part of it. I don't remember anyone being mocked because he or she didn't participate in a certain day of the class.
Honestly, school sex education taught me a lot of the mechanics that I wasn't comfortable discussing with my parents. But they had given me enough knowledge and the right perspective, so that when I heard more about it, I could process the information correctly.
I think that teaching sex in school will not encourage young people to experiment if it is done the right way. But in stead will help a lot with answer questions that parents should had dealt with (but they never do). We could not force them to talk with their kids but we could control a good sex education program. So there is no draw back (if we put some positive effort in it) but it has a lot of benefices , preventing HIV and pregnacy being just some of them . Young one will have sex ! we can not control that but we can get them prepared !
First, I'd like to clarify that when I write sex education I refer to teaching about causes and effects of puberty, and ways to stay protected from STDs. That's it. That's what I was taught, at least. If any of you meant more than that in their comments, please detail.
QUOTE |
In a Perfect World, we wouldn't even need to ask this question |
QUOTE |
First, I think parents should bear the responsibility of teaching their kids about sex. |
QUOTE |
Kids learn about sex from TV and their likewise uninformed friends |
QUOTE (Smudge @ 17-Nov 04, 10:57 PM) |
First, I'd like to clarify that when I write sex education I refer to teaching about causes and effects of puberty, and ways to stay protected from STDs. That's it. That's what I was taught, at least. If any of you meant more than that in their comments, please detail. *** Again, I ask, why? What is so different between sex and all the other subjects taught in school? What is it so special about it that parents are those who need to teach it, and not teacher's? I don't think there's any difference. Sex is a natural process, and we should know about it. there's nothing to be embarrased about while learning. And if parents are supposed to teach it, not all do, as you said, so it has to be someone. |
They make those instructional classes for people who are completely unaware of dangers risks or science of the matter. I found the classes disgusting and left with an upset stomach every class. I can see it being informative and I can also see it being a waste of time.
From Smudge:
QUOTE | ||
huh? why would there be no need for sex education in a perfect world? |
QUOTE |
SB 1437 - Changes the State Education code "relating to prohibited instruction" and adds a radical sexual orientation indoctrination program This bill would prohibit schools from doing anything that can in any way be considered as adversely reflecting on any individual based on their perceived "gender" or "sexual orientation." Included would be any curriculum, text books or school sponsored activities. The term "gender" is defined as "real or perceived" and "sexual orientation" is not well defined. As a result, the schools would be forced to teach school children that all forms of sexual behavior are normal and acceptable, that gender is not important in raising children, that all forms of "family" are equal and that gender is not physically defined but merely a "social construct." This will not only undermine the prevailing norms and values of society generally but also the values and religious teaching many parents are attempting to instill in their children. If it passes, SB 1437 will force our public schools to indoctrinate children with pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual and pro-transgender lessons, reading material and activities. By law, the negative and undesirable facts and aspects of these sexual behaviors and lifestyles could not be taught, making a mockery of the educational mission of our schools. |
I fail to see why sex education should even go into homosexual sex etc. What is the point of that? Sex education should teach children about responsibility. It should teach them about the consequences of their actions, not go into a blow by blow account of different sexual preferences.