I'm in Elementary school I would not want to learn about sex
Give that in many states elementary school goes up to 6th grade, I would hope they teach you about sex. After all we are all here because of it. Good information, on what sex is, and what the consequences of sex can be is information that is good to have.
I agree that people should be informed about the consequences of sex; I'm just wondering whether school is the best environment for that. Anyway, I'm glad Unicorn is weighing in on the discussion, which ultimately is about the students' welfare.
Where else do you want kids to learn about sex, religion? Religion isn't the best place to learn about sex. Parents? Many of whom won't talk about it or have bad outdated material?
Where would you propose we teach kids about sex? I contend school, in a fact driven way, no morals, no judgement, here's what sex is, here are the consequences if you decide to have sex, here's how to lessen the dangers of sex.
I was thinking about that for the last couple of hours, and I'm still not sure about it. Religion hasn't even occurred to me as a legitimate "instructor", it's just that I would rather hear the outdated version from my parents (as I'm inclined to follow my own way henceforth, which I think any pubescent child is supposed to do anyway) than the right/well-informed version in an environment where I don't feel comfortable. I just think it's none of their (e.g. teachers) business.
Also I'm wondering whether I would have my child given sex education from anyone else but me.
And if you're parents outdated version is that being homosexual is wrong, or a choice or evil, despite the studies that show that homosexuality is genetic and found thought out nature?
See, that the problem with outdated information, if a child happens to be homosexual, and many know at a very young age they are, and their parents are tell them it's a choice or evil or wrong, rather than given them the facts, what damage is being done to that child. While in a neutral setting, it can be explain that a certain percentage of the population will be homosexual, not choice, not evil, not wrong, just a fact. Like have brown or blue eyes.
"And if you're parents outdated version is that being homosexual is wrong" <- that would teach me that I had better not rely on my parents concerning that aspect of my life.
It's just that some things can't be learned in school. I would say that it is a big "if" to state that percentages would soothe a developing child; let alone when these are lectured. For me, sex is a very personal subject; who decides when is the "right time" for this subject to enter the curriculum?
But you missed the point, if you happened to be homosexual and you were told over and over again it was evil or bad how would that make you feel about yourself.
As for the age 6 or 7th grade is generally when sex-ed it taught, that is 12-14 years old, you have to teach it BEFORE children start becoming sexual active, and yet old enough to understand what being taught.
Also the school isn't teaching sex, that is how to do it, but giving general information about sex what is, how to prevent STDs, pregnancy, etc, not position 186 and don't forget to grease the sheets.
I don't think I missed the point. At first you meant the consequences of sex (meaning STDs, pregnancy, etc.), in the next post you mean the orientation. Yes, I agree that at some point there should be at least some affirmation of what so far has been speculatative for children (just so they don't have feel shame or guilt thinking about it).
But I would just like to point out that there seems to be somewhat of a tendency to over-rely on schools for child upbringing. I can see the advantage, as it would be a standardized course or whatever. But in my opinion, that is an actual problem.
And I don't know what 'greasing sheets' is. :'s <- please don't elaborate
Also: aren't these subjects already taught in biology class, like the chapter on reproduction?
Many parents avoid this talk, or lie. One girl I went to school with was told by her mother that she could get pregnant if a guy touched her breasts. Other people I know heard nothing about it at all from their parents....and one of those friends of mine contracted HIV, something else his parent's failed to mention. He had no idea that he was at risk...he didn't even know what HIV was. He was Deaf and his parents didn't think it was the 'school's business' to teach their son about sex ed. He passed away in 2007.
Your comfort level, and whose 'business you think it is' weighs far less than the overall negative impacts of sexual ignorance on our society. People die, become ill, have unwanted babies, and fall prey to criminals and predators without the necessary information to protect themselves and their bodies.
It's everyone's business, and just because someone is too immature to accept good information from a teacher, doesn't mean other people should get sick or die.
Once again: this topic is not about whether people should be informed at all, rather where it takes place.
I actually find it incredulous that someone doesn't know of the existence of HIV in this day and age, despite flipping the news on or reading a newspaper (which are also ways to 'accept good information'; my point in this tread is: why does it necessarily have to be a teacher?). I mean no disrespect to this person you've mentioned, I mean I literally have a hard time believing this is a legitimate story (depending on the country or continent this person hails from). Also it moreso speaks *against* this/these person's parents, rather than *for* sex ed.
In this thread, I've mentioned the following arguments to support my opinion [with some additions I hadn't mentioned so far between these square brackets]:
- Youngsters should be encouraged to weigh in on this decision, as the subject of which they are informed with is of a more personal nature, and if they would prefer to keep that personal, I actually respect that;
- I think pre-adolescents, despite their young age, are very capable to voice their interests and should rather be encouraged to think for themselves than anything else [especially in school];
- [Despite a long tradition of child psychology debating this topic] I am under the impression that you "can't"/shouldn't decide for heaps of youngsters when is the "right" time for them to be educated in this en masse;
- The decision to have sex "educated" in school might add to the existing over-reliance on school that folks have for child upbringing already;
- I'm unsure whether throwing percentages at emotionally struggling teens will solve the problem, as it actually might make them more [mentally] insecure about how they relate to what is perceived to be [statistically] 'normal';
- I don't see a significant difference between the addition of sex-ed compared to a possible expansion of the reproduction-chapter in biology class;
- I don't think people would be physically unable to figure a condom out without collectively having done so before the age of 14, under supervision of a trained adult;
- Rather than being "too immature to accept good information from a teacher", some youngsters might feel resentment for what they could perceive as patronizing, especially if their feed-back (such as the one Unicorn made at the top of this thread) is not taken seriously [because NO MEANS NO <- which is what they chiefly should be taught, where-ever];
- Instead of adding to the existing over-reliance on schools for child upbringing, I would propose to encourage - and if possible assist - parents to take responsibility for their children. There are probably ample reasons for them to wanting to share this load (like working multiple jobs or health issues), and I would rather see these fundamental problems addressed than creating 'outsourced' symptomatic solutions [if I may dramatize for the sake of argument].
Finally, I appreciate the fact you think my (or anyone's) personal comfort level weighs less than what is beneficial to society as a whole, but I wouldn't learn anything useful from a sex-ed teacher with *that* attitude.
Students are not high-end clientele at a country club resort. School is not designed to coddle or protect adolescent embarrassments. Students, for the most part, are in a public institution, paid for by public dollars, in order to make them better functioning citizens when they grow up. Just because you aren't comfortable learning important health information that will protect our society, doesn't mean you can force your personally chosen ignorance on other people -especially when said ignorance leads to disease and/or death.
But, more to the point, I work with Deaf people everyday, and I work in social services. As a sign language interpreter I am working inside of hospitals, police stations, courtrooms, mental wards, detox facilities, counseling centers, and lawyers offices. Everyday I see the human wreckage that results from widespread ignorance about health and sexuality.
So, excuse me if I find your smug attitude rather disgusting. Honestly, sex-ed isn't for people like you, it's for everyone else whose lives depend on that information. Teachers can only present good information, they cannot force students to accept it, and that goes for any subject of study. You are welcome to wallow in ignorance, but you have no right to demand that everyone else remain ignorant to protect your 'feelings'.
That's a crime - a crime against humanity at large.
So, you have a hard time believing the Deaf community suffers from information deficit?
That's too bad, but making judgements from a bubble of ignorance is not an answer to a serious public health problem. Perhaps you are just a 'youngster' yourself, with very little exposure to life outside of the protective confines of your religion, I honestly don't know, or care much either way.
So, instead of engaging you in further, and I fear, rather pointless discussion, I'll just leave some links for you to peruse.
Here is some academic research regarding the high percent of HIV in Deaf populations:
Here is another government study from the National Institute of Health on the same topic: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403503/pdf/pubhealth...ep00060-0088.pdf
And, one more on the same topic, from yet another scholarly source: muse.jhu.edu/article/173623