NationStates Jolt Archive

How young is too young? How old is too old? Who should educate children about this? School? Parents? Combo?

1) Too young to be able to speak
2) When you're already well into puberty
3) Combo

How young is too young?
Before birth.

How old is too old?
After death.

Who should educate children about this? School? Parents? Combo?
We should learn from everybody.

How young is too young?

Too young never happens. Age only affects how you explain things to the child, according to his ability to understand.



How old is too old?
Obviously if you wait until the kids are well into puberty you've missed the mark. Early puberty at the latest, otherwise how can you expect them to understand what the hell goes wrong with their bodies and attractions?


Who should educate children about this?


It's a joint responsibility. School has in my opinion the largest role to play, if only for the fact that lots of parents (probably even a majority) probably do not even have the proper knowledge to teach their children properly. But parents should also broach the subject, especially on matters pertaining to healthy relationships and safe sex.

We don't need the parent's permission to teach other subjects. Give the kids what they need to lead healthy lives.

Since kids DO NOT want to talk about sex with their moms I believe the school should play a big role in sex ed.

Since kids DO NOT want to talk about sex with their moms I believe the school should play a big role in sex ed.

Quoted For Truth.

Since kids DO NOT want to talk about sex with their moms I believe the school should play a big role in sex ed.

Fortunately, my mother has never had sex, and therefore I will never have to have "the talk" with her, because she doesn't know how it works anyway.

Fortunately, my mother has never had sex, and therefore I will never have to have "the talk" with her, because she doesn't know how it works anyway.
My mother, like all of the Fiddlebottoms women, would never deign to descend her trousers and rut like a common pig. She reproduced via mitosis, that's why I have no memories of her, excepting those which are carried on through RNA.
I remember how to feast. Pursuing weakling beasts through the water, consuming. Wrap around them, and devour. Dissolve and devour them like the inferiors they are.

So, basically, I don't need sex ed. I just need to find a woman who I can convince to die and split into halves.

So, basically, I don't need sex ed. I just need to find a woman who I can convince to die and split into halves.

I want to introduce you to my ex-wife.

We don't need the parent's permission to teach other subjects. Give the kids what they need to lead healthy lives.

I agree. It would be nice if parents did a decent job of educating their children, but sex ed should be taught in all middle and high schools. You can get an STD or get a girl pregnant before understanding the consequences, so adolescents should be given the information they need to protect themselves and make educated decisions.

I think parents should explain it to their children at an early age. Kids are naturally curious, so just explain it when they ask. Also, sex ed should be mandatory at school, well before the children hit puberty. Keeping them in the dark about sex doesn't stop them having sex, but it does increase teen pregnancies & STDs.

Ideally, I think it's the parents responsibility to teach their kids about sex. People being as they are, though, I really have no problem with the schools doing it(up to a point)but think the parent's should be notified that that is going to happen, and have the option of opting out.

...for the fact that lots of parents (probably even a majority) probably do not even have the proper knowledge to teach their children properly.

Depends on your definition of 'properly' I suppose. And 'proper knowledge.' I don't really think you need an advanced degree to talk to your kids about sex.

Anything before the age of 17 is too soon.

-_-

Depends on your definition of 'properly' I suppose. And 'proper knowledge.' I don't really think you need an advanced degree to talk to your kids about sex.
How can a parent teach their kids about safe sex if they never had sex ed themselves? How can they inform them properly about health risks, STDs, the reproduction system and how it works if they have no background on the matter? And even if they did have it, hey, turns out HIV wasn't known and recognized until the 1980s, well after they had their classes.

There is a lot of ignorance out there. Just because dad's a crack mechanic and mom an expert accountant doesn't mean either has a fucking clue about the inner workings of the uterus, the difference between the modes of transmission of HIV and genital herpes, or how sperm and eggs interact to form a fetus.

If you rely solely on parents for sex ed, some kids will be taught properly, and others will not. Not because parents don't want to (although admittedly some won't want their kids to know about sex, but that's silly and counterproductive and I'll say it to their faces anytime), but because their parents might not have the medical and health background and knowledge needed to provide all the necessary informations these kids need to know.

Schools should teach it with or without consent. It's too basic to opt out of, religious (or whatever) objections or not.

How can a parent teach their kids about safe sex if they never had sex ed themselves? How can they inform them properly about health risks, STDs, the reproduction system and how it works if they have no background on the matter?

Yeah, too bad there aren't any books or other educational tools that might help them do that, and nowhere to go to get them. Oh, wait...

If you rely solely on parents for sex ed, some kids will be taught properly, and others will not.

Which is why I said, "people being as they are, I have no problem with the schools doing it, as long as the parents are notified that it's taking place and have the option of opting out."

Kids are never too young. Granted, early sex ed courses should be more about names of parts and hygiene with maybe some basic description of where babies come from, but by grade four and five they should be learning about puberty so they can anticipate (and be less concerned) when it hits them.

They should be learning about sex and protection (and diseases) before they start having it though. So grade six or seven?

Also, parental permission shouldn't be necessary. Kids go to school to learn. Parents don't give permission for their kids to be taught math, why should kids need permission to be taught about their bodies? (granted, schools should make sure kids are being taught properly)

sort of play off of parents consent.
Let parents have option so they get to teach their kid, but the kid is tested on the material

I mentioned this in the other thread, but coming from first generation immigrant parents, I didn't even learn about the mechanics of sex until high school. I'm also not realistically tempted by sexual relations so contraceptives education is a non-issue for me haha :D

One thing I know is that abstinence does not work (see Catholic schools). I suppose early introduction will reduce temptations and risky behaviour, only on the premise that promiscuity is okay, or abstinence is completely voluntary to the individual (freedom of thought and religion).

Kids are never too young. Granted, early sex ed courses should be more about names of parts and hygiene with maybe some basic description of where babies come from, but by grade four and five they should be learning about puberty so they can anticipate (and be less concerned) when it hits them.

They should be learning about sex and protection (and diseases) before they start having it though. So grade six or seven?

Also, parental permission shouldn't be necessary. Kids go to school to learn. Parents don't give permission for their kids to be taught math, why should kids need permission to be taught about their bodies? (granted, schools should make sure kids are being taught properly)

Pretty much this. This is what I would have got, except that my year 7 PE teacher couldn't be arsed teaching about diseases and stuff, so he just gave us a pamphlet and sent us out to play soccer... but other than that, I got this education. I've never had an STD or pregnancy scare. Coincidence? Probably not.

Also, I regret that only the girls were given the condoms and bananas. I think they just assumed us guys would have already experimented. In most cases, they were actually right...

Also, I regret that only the girls were given the condoms and bananas. I think they just assumed us guys would have already experimented. In most cases, they were actually right...

Most boys don't dispose of them the way we were told we should in our health classes though. We were told that they should have a knot tied in them at the top and be put in the trash. Lots of guys just slip it off and put it in the trash or wrap it in toilet paper and put it in the trash... et c.

Also some guys are lazy and don't like putting them on themselves... it's not too hard to figure out though.

How young is too young? How old is too old? Who should educate children about this? School? Parents? Combo?

Readiness varies with the individual child. I believe it's time when the child starts asking questions about sex, then the answers should be simple, but complete and accurate using proper terminology, but geared to age and comprehension level. If you're embarassed by it, then you should delegate to someone else - the last thing kids need to learn is that sex is dirty and embarassing.

Ideally, of course, the parents should handle it, but most of them, it seems, are incompetent to do so or unwilling to do it intelligently, so it's left to the schools (who, unfortunately, are also incompetent to do so and unwilling to do it intelligently).

Most boys don't dispose of them the way we were told we should in our health classes though. We were told that they should have a knot tied in them at the top and be put in the trash. Lots of guys just slip it off and put it in the trash or wrap it in toilet paper and put it in the trash...

I've always flushed them, sewage systems be damned.

Anything before the age of 17 is too soon.

-_-

So you would rather they learn how to prevent STD's and pregnancy AFTER many of them contract STD's and become pregnant/impregnate someone?

Which is why I said, "people being as they are, I have no problem with the schools doing it, as long as the parents are notified that it's taking place and have the option of opting out."

Just like they should be able to opt out of their child learning about evolution? Or is it just the mysteries of sex that should remain hidden from kids with bad parents?

Just like they should be able to opt out of their child learning about evolution? Or is it just the mysteries of sex that should remain hidden from kids with bad parents?

First of all, even without the benevolent guidance of the NEA, 'the mysteries of sex' are unlikely to remain hidden from any kid, for any length of time, especially if that kid has access to cable TV or the internet. Hell, I grew up with neither, and by 12 I knew a lot of the theory, and three years later, I had passed the...practical, as it were.

Secondly, 'opting out of sex ed at school' does not automatically equal 'bad parent.' Maybe they're opting out because they want to do it themselves, or for religious reasons, or for any other of hundreds of reasons they might have. If the school system provides the option of opting out, it's not really any of their business why someone takes advantage of it.

So you would rather they learn how to prevent STD's and pregnancy AFTER many of them contract STD's and become pregnant/impregnate someone?

Obviously, if abstinence-only sexual education was pressed more effectively, teens wouldn't contract STDs as they wouldn't be having sex.

First of all, even without the benevolent guidance of the NEA, 'the mysteries of sex' are unlikely to remain hidden from any kid, for any length of time, especially if that kid has access to cable TV or the internet. Hell, I grew up with neither, and by 12 I knew a lot of the theory, and three years later, I had passed the...practical, as it were.

Great. At the time did you know how to use birth control safely and effectively? Were you aware of all your options when it came to preventing pregnancy and STD's?

Secondly, 'opting out of sex ed at school' does not automatically equal 'bad parent.' Maybe they're opting out because they want to do it themselves, or for religious reasons, or for any other of hundreds of reasons they might have. If the school system provides the option of opting out, it's not really any of their business why someone takes advantage of it.

Opting your child out of sex ed is no different than opting them out of evolution, certain books, or lessons about all races being equal. I don't give a damn what your reasons are the effect is that you are preventing your child from learning. Preventing your child from learning makes you a bad parent.

I don't give a damn what your reasons are the effect is that you are preventing your child from learning. Preventing your child from learning makes you a bad parent.

Opting out of a school-provided program does not prevent learning about a subject, unless that specific program is the only possible avenue for doing so. It's been my experience that a lot of the people who do opt out do so because they wish to educate their children on the subject themselves. That's hardly preventing them from learning about it.

Can't believe no one's posted this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTMlZSKEu-Y

Can't believe no one's posted this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTMlZSKEu-Y

I was asleep :p
And while the clip is meant to be surreal and silly, I actually consider it a good idea to give sex ed in that way. Yes, including an actual demonstration.

As for the age.. start at 6 or so. Not with the whole story, just with explaining why it is not ok for 50 year old men to touch your weewee. Increase the amount of knowledge gradually over the years, so that when they reach puberty the knowledge should be there. To make sure of it, have a rehash class in school.

Opting out of a school-provided program does not prevent learning about a subject, unless that specific program is the only possible avenue for doing so. It's been my experience that a lot of the people who do opt out do so because they wish to educate their children on the subject themselves. That's hardly preventing them from learning about it.

If that's what they want to do then they need to demonstrate to the state that they're CAPABLE of doing so. Maybe it's just what gets reported in the news, but from what I've seen "opting out" is less about "I want to teach them myself" and more about "I don't want MY kids to learn about those dirty, dirty things" (whether "those dirty, dirty things" happen to be birth control, evolution, equality, or the banned book de jour).

The latter is not something we should be tolerating. It leads to children growing up to be adults as ignorant as their parents were.

I also notice you completely ignored my questions as to if the street education you picked up about sex was the equal of what you would have learned from a comprehensive sex ed class taught by a competent adult. If what you listed was your ONLY source of sex ed I wonder how many myths and misconceptions you held about sex, and if you hold some of them to this day because you weren't taught any better.

I was asleep :p
And while the clip is meant to be surreal and silly, I actually consider it a good idea to give sex ed in that way. Yes, including an actual demonstration.

As for the age.. start at 6 or so. Not with the whole story, just with explaining why it is not ok for 50 year old men to touch your weewee.

Unless of course that 50 year old man is your doctor who needs to examine your weewee because something might be wrong with it. With small children these things are best left clear or we might have a repeat of that South Park episode where the kids got every adult in town arrested.

If that's what they want to do then they need to demonstrate to the state that they're CAPABLE of doing so.

No. There is so much that is anathema in that sentence it boggles the mind. Let's settle for saying that they didn't need to 'demonstrate to the state' that they were capable of being parents in the first place, they don't need to 'demonstrate to the state' that they're capable of teaching their kids about sex. Besides, we're not talking quantumn physics here, you don't need a degree in education or medicine to talk to your kids about sex.

I also notice you completely ignored my questions as to if the street education you picked up about sex was the equal of what you would have learned from a comprehensive sex ed class taught by a competent adult.

"Yes I did, and you caught me. You caught the Tater. Good work, boys."
Actually I did receive comprehensive sex ed from a competent adult, said adult being my father, who gave me both theoretical and practical maxims that, coupled(heh) with my own experiences, continue to be useful to this day.

If what you listed was your ONLY source of sex ed I wonder how many myths and misconceptions you held about sex, and if you hold some of them to this day because you weren't taught any better.

It wasn't, and I never said it was, but feel free to assume and make veiled personal attacks.

No. There is so much that is anathema in that sentence it boggles the mind. Let's settle for saying that they didn't need to 'demonstrate to the state' that they were capable of being parents in the first place, they don't need to 'demonstrate to the state' that they're capable of teaching their kids about sex. Besides, we're not talking quantumn physics here, you don't need a degree in education or medicine to talk to your kids about sex.

But if they want to opt their child out of science, or math, or school all together they have to show that they are capable of educating their child in the subjects they're opting them out of. Why should sex ed be different? Who is going to make sure children educated in sex ed by there parents learn FACTS and not myths, misconceptions, and outright lies? Your father may have, as you said, given you the facts accurately and straight, but other kids have not been as lucky. Why should they be left with shoddy knowledge about these matters? Is not knowledge always preferable to ignorance?

But if they want to opt their child out of science, or math, or school all together they have to show that they are capable of educating their child in the subjects they're opting them out of. Why should sex ed be different? Who is going to make sure children educated in sex ed by there parents learn FACTS and not myths, misconceptions, and outright lies? Your father may have, as you said, given you the facts accurately and straight, but other kids have not been as lucky. Why should they be left with shoddy knowledge about these matters? Is not knowledge always preferable to ignorance?

In math, 1+1 will always equal 2 regardless of a family's ideological leanings. There is not a whole lot of room for discussion there, it's a standard that the whole world agrees on, a fairly basic black-and-white fact. Unlike, say, math, though, once the mechanics and biology are dispensed with, sex ed has the potential to have an...let's say, ideological component.

And this is where it can get into tricky ground. Because there are certain topics that can be covered by sex ed classes that may be treated differently by a school program than those same topics would be treated if the same infornation was conveyed by the child's parents. And because sex ed is not deemed to be as academically important or necessary as say, math, or reading, and because the treatment of these sex ed topics is often informed in large part by the parent's beliefs or ideologies, thus casting the role of the government in creating educational standards for said parentally given sex ed courses in doubt, it is something that the government has, more or less, been fairly reluctant to interfere with, mostly to spare itself the headaches.

As for the last bit there, knowledge isn't always preferable to ignorance. For example, I have knowledge of how it feels to be stabbed, and I could have happily lived in ignorance of that. Knowledge is usually preferable to ignorance, but alot depends on how you define those two words, especially with regards to a topic like this.

In math, 1+1 will always equal 2 regardless of a family's ideological leanings. There is not a whole lot of room for discussion there, it's a standard that the whole world agrees on, a fairly basic black-and-white fact. Unlike, say, math, though, once the mechanics and biology are dispensed with, sex ed has the potential to have an...let's say, ideological component.

And regardless of the parents ideological leanings the FACTS presented in sex ed remain the same. Examples:

Fact: Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing STD's.

Fact: If you choose to have sex condoms, while not 100% effective, can also be highly effective at preventing STD's and pregnancy. They are even more effective at preventing pregnancy if you use them in conjunction with other birth control methods, such as the pill (the figure I got when I went through sex ed was something like 99.8% with both condom and birth control pill, new studies may have come out with different numbers since then).

Fact: If you choose to do so this is how to use a condom correctly. (To forestall the inveterate complaint a parent being ideologically against birth control does not make the proper way to use a condom not a fact.)

Fact: Gay people exist. You may not like it, you may not agree with homosexuality but it is a FACT that they exist.

I don't care about someone ideological complaints about sex ed anymore than I care about their ideological complaints about the teaching of evolution, or racial equality.

And regardless of the parents ideological leanings the FACTS presented in sex ed remain the same. I don't care about someone ideological complaints about sex ed anymore than I care about their ideological complaints about the teaching of evolution, or racial equality.

Alot of the time it's not the facts(or FACTS, if you prefer)that get people aggravated, it's the way in which those facts are presented. Some parents want to be able to present those facts their own way, rather than relinquish that to someone else. And while you may not care about complaints, I suspect(and correct me if I'm wrong) that you do not run a school district, or a school, or a sex ed course. The people who do, however, have to care about(or at least deal with)the complaints, and angry phone calls, and letters to the editor and providing a course but letting people opt out is seen as a workable compromise. It's easy to make a heroic stand on your principles when nothing is at stake, but when it becomes an actual real-world issue, with actual real-world repercussions, "principles" often seem like unsteadier footing.

Fortunately, my mother has never had sex, and therefore I will never have to have "the talk" with her, because she doesn't know how it works anyway.

Jesus Christ! :eek:

I mentioned this in the other thread, but coming from first generation immigrant parents, I didn't even learn about the mechanics of sex until high school. I'm also not realistically tempted by sexual relations so contraceptives education is a non-issue for me haha :D

One thing I know is that abstinence does not work (see Catholic schools). I suppose early introduction will reduce temptations and risky behaviour, only on the premise that promiscuity is okay, or abstinence is completely voluntary to the individual (freedom of thought and religion).

Famous last non-pregnant words.

Redwulf, you and Heinleinites are both right. The difference is, you're assuming ignorance in a fairly offensive manner.

You're right that there are indeed FACTS of the sexual education matter, and he is right that there are also subjective OPINIONS about A) the facts themselves and B) how they're presented.

Agree to disagree and get on with life.

All I know is that my sex ed in high school was the most effective abstinence program ever, and not because they preached abstinence. No, they gave us the full rundown of all the useful contraceptive devices, how to use them and whatnot, and why they expect us to have sex.

What made it an abstinence program was the fact that the high school reproductive health counselor, (who was a short, fat, old woman) pulled a condom over her hands. Three times. It was enough to creep me out that I was unable to have safe sex (and, thus, any sex at all) for two years.

How young is too young? How old is too old? Who should educate children about this? School? Parents? Combo?

Too young: before 1st grade.
Too old: after completing high school.
Who should: competent teachers (this should rule out nuns! ;) ).
As for parents, many parents are able to teach, many parents aren't. One cannot rely on parents.

This is a really tricky question. Different kids are ready for it at different times. And schools really need to do it, since many parents just don't bother.

I personally got little use from the sex ed we got at primary school when I was 10 or 11 (I faintly remember a cutesy video explaining it using bunnies). In fact, the idea of people shoving their bits into each other seemed so ridiculous and icky that I believed until the age of 14 that it couldn't possibly be true and that there must be some sort of mass conspiracy lying to the world about how sex was done.

The second lot of sex ed we had when I was about 15/16 was probably a better age. Yet they rather ruined it by showing some really video that looked like it was from the eighties where I just laughed at the ridiculous fashion and hairstyles all the way through, rather than noticing anything of what they said. No-one took it very seriously, you know what teenagers are like, thinking genital parts terribly amusing.

I think there's potentially room for schools to do it best, but its very difficult to come up with a programme of sex ed that kids will take seriously.

Too young: before 1st grade.
Too old: after completing high school.
Who should: competent teachers (this should rule out nuns! ;) ).
As for parents, many parents are able to teach, many parents aren't. One cannot rely on parents.

Nah, we got taught by a nun. Apparently, she's led a rich and interesting life before she joined the convent. It was quite.... impressive.

Then again, I've since discovered that those nuns I've been taught by at school were anything but normal nuns.

Here in Sweden no parents object to Sex Ed...since I lectured som 14 year old kids about it last year I am happy since there are a lot of misconcenptions about it.

If it is in the curriculum the school should not have to make any difference between teaching sex ed or teaching social science (eg palistinia-Israel conflict) as long as it done in a objective way.

Alot of the time it's not the facts(or FACTS, if you prefer)that get people aggravated, it's the way in which those facts are presented. Some parents want to be able to present those facts their own way, rather than relinquish that to someone else. And while you may not care about complaints, I suspect(and correct me if I'm wrong) that you do not run a school district, or a school, or a sex ed course. The people who do, however, have to care about(or at least deal with)the complaints, and angry phone calls, and letters to the editor and providing a course but letting people opt out is seen as a workable compromise. It's easy to make a heroic stand on your principles when nothing is at stake, but when it becomes an actual real-world issue, with actual real-world repercussions, "principles" often seem like unsteadier footing.

Unfortunately there is one other fact parents tend to forget:
Kids talk to eachother. And yes, also about sex. So whatever you do not want them to know, they will hear from other kids. They will just almost certainly get an incomplete or even very wrong image.

Sex ed should be part of the standard health class taught in all middle and high schools. A lot of parents seem to be stuck on the idea that yelling at their kids and telling them 'Don't do it ever or else' is going to make a difference in the long run. Its quite simple: they're gonna do it, regardless of what you say. So ya might as well give em the knowledge and tools to be safe about it. I'm not saying to hand em a copy of the Kama Sutra and say have fun junior but giving them a box of condoms and telling them that if they're too embarrassed to go buy them themselves that they can always ask you for more is certainly an option. The key would be to maintain a completely open relationship with your kids so they feel comfortable coming to you and talking about it.
I suppose what this boils down to is its yes the schools responsibility but more so the parents and the whole sex ed thing groundwork needs to be laid from a very young age.

considering that a large percentage of girls get their first period at age 9, it better be by the 3rd grade. 4th grade is too late.

parents should start "sex ed" at the same age that they start teaching everything else. there is no sense in saving up for the "big talk". it should be a natural part of life that you discuss from the time the child can talk at all. subject to their interest and understanding just like any other topic.

it should start in school as soon as school starts. it should be mandatory. you dont get to opt your children out of math; you shouldnt get to opt them out of biology.

Ok..
Yes I think sex ed should be taught regardless.

Want to know where I learnt about mine? Playtex Tampon boxes.. on the inside they listed many different VD's and their symptoms, where I use to read in the privacy of my bathroom while taking a crap. Did it help me? YES. While reading one of the symptoms I concluded I had the (Clap).. and I did.

I think the problem many parents have with sex ed is that they think its actually teaching their kids about how to have sex or the act itself. It should be renamed.

Just an example here .. my mom when she was young was dreadfully scared to tell her mother she had started her period. She felt she had done something wrong. No help from her siblings, and at the time her siblings were her brothers, those sisters were gone. Her closest older brother threatened to kick her ass if she ever had a period. He didn't knw any better. So for a long time she threw her panties in the outhouse hole.

She was the youngest of 13, her older sisters (2 sisters) were long gone.

Oldest ran the hell off (my grandma treated her bad), younger was basically handed over to an old perv when she was 13 and he was in his 30's. No less by my grandfather who was a liqour hauling, gambling wife beatin bastard?

Sooo ... come around to me. Besides the crazy shit I had to deal with when a boy showed interest. I also had to deal with my mom calling me a whore when I was 14 and mentioned maybe I should have a gynecological exam.

So.. my theory is ..

Teach them about STD's. Teach them about their own cycles. Hormones..

Something else I think should be taught.. but Isn't AT all;.. is....

CREDIT should be an entire semester/Serious.

TAXES (though , no one can understand whats laid out for us), even 'Professionals' fail, it's built that way .. you aren't suppose to be able to 'get it'.

Ok..
Yes I think sex ed should be taught regardless.

Want to know where I learnt about mine? Playtex Tampon boxes.. on the inside they listed many different VD's and their symptoms, where I use to read in the privacy of my bathroom while taking a crap. Did it help me? YES. While reading one of the symptoms I concluded I had the (Clap).. and I did.

I think the problem many parents have with sex ed is that they think its actually teaching their kids about how to have sex or the act itself. It should be renamed.

Just an example here .. my mom when she was young was dreadfully scared to tell her mother she had started her period. She felt she had done something wrong. No help from her siblings, and at the time her siblings were her brothers, those sisters were gone. Her closest older brother threatened to kick her ass if she ever had a period. He didn't knw any better. So for a long time she threw her panties in the outhouse hole.

She was the youngest of 13, her older sisters (2 sisters) were long gone.

Oldest ran the hell off (my grandma treated her bad), younger was basically handed over to an old perv when she was 13 and he was in his 30's. No less by my grandfather who was a liqour hauling, gambling wife beatin bastard?

Sooo ... come around to me. Besides the crazy shit I had to deal with when a boy showed interest. I also had to deal with my mom calling me a whore when I was 14 and mentioned maybe I should have a gynecological exam.
I had no idea you were female. *mind is blown*

Edit: actually... I seem to very faintly remember having had this epiphany before. I'm getting old.

I had no idea you were female. *mind is blown*

Edit: actually... I seem to very faintly remember having had this epiphany before. I'm getting old.

It's ok hehe. :fluffle:

Human physiology and basic hygiene should feature from about when kids would be old enough to wash themselves. The mechanics of sex, including how to do it safely and the risks involved should come before puberty. As should the grand reveal about the existence of homo- and bisexuals, with plentiful emphasis on how discrimination against or abuse of anyone on these grounds is very much against school rules, and in some situations illegal(if it is). Before puberty would be a good time to explain what that's going to be like too. A brief refresher course a year or so into it wouldn't hurt either. Closer studies of sexual reproduction(mitosis v meiosis, how sperm + ovum ends up as a new....whatever) would probably fit in high school biology class.

Basically, by the time kids get into puberty and start really getting interested in having sex they should know how to do so as safely as possible, what'll happen if they don't, and what could happen even if they do.

I've always flushed them, sewage systems be damned.
Stop contributing to the gene pool of sewer mutants, damn it.
Just like they should be able to opt out of their child learning about evolution?

Or calculus. Ain't none of that shit in the bible, I tell you what.

Or calculus. Ain't none of that shit in the bible, I tell you what.

Fuck calculus. Like I'm ever going to need that in my line of profession...

>.>

OSHI-

It's amazing what people think to teach and to ignore. I was nine when my period started. My mother got on my case because she thought I was soiling my underwear. I finally had to point out to her that it was blood and that I had possibly started my period (something I had learned about from a pamphlet at YWCA camp). The funny thing was that my father had already told me about sex (with the help of two randy camels at the zoo who were demonstrating the act, thus piquing my curiousity). He and my mom didn't think it was necessary to teach me about periods so soon because I was so young and my mother was 16 when she started.

It's amazing what people think to teach and to ignore. I was nine when my period started. My mother got on my case because she thought I was soiling my underwear. I finally had to point out to her that it was blood and that I had possibly started my period (something I had learned about from a pamphlet at YWCA camp). The funny thing was that my father had already told me about sex (with the help of two randy camels at the zoo who were demonstrating the act, thus piquing my curiousity). He and my mom didn't think it was necessary to teach me about periods so soon because I was so young and my mother was 16 when she started.



haha that's awsome. My dads version was taking a pen ramming it into its lid. Although I' sure he was kidding. I watched his porn vids during sometime. No I'm not saying his pen in the lid caused me to watch porn.. I just know I did ..

I ignored ex-ed completely in school. Slept right through it. It was all videos, and the flickering of film strips in the dark knocks me right out.

For he last 7 years I'm meh to sex. If I get horney I take care of it myself. I'm not against a partner, but I'm not gonna put up with some bullshit. I love men. No doubt, but I love me more.

Fuck calculus. Like I'm ever going to need that in my line of profession...

>.>

OSHI-
Being an engineer you won't need sex ed either.
haha that's awsome. My dads version was taking a pen ramming it into its lid. Although I' sure he was kidding. I watched his porn vids during sometime. No I'm not saying his pen in the lid caused me to watch porn.. I just know I did ..
Pens lead to porn. BAN PENS! ONE LETTER AWAY FROM NAUGHTY BOY PARTS!
For he last 7 years I'm meh to sex. If I get horney I take care of it myself. I'm not against a partner, but I'm not gonna put up with some bullshit. I love men. No doubt, but I love me more.

And with good reason. You're the one with the boobs.


Usually.

Best way of learning is experience.Two holes,take your pick.And your gf pregnant aint that bad,if you love her.Worked out for me.

Being an engineer you won't need sex ed either.

Pens lead to porn. BAN PENS! ONE LETTER AWAY FROM NAUGHTY BOY PARTS!


And with good reason. You're the one with the boobs.


Usually.

Yeah ban pens! Especially BiC that bastard.

Best way of learning is experience.Two holes,take your pick.And your gf pregnant aint that bad,if you love her.Worked out for me.

Love doesn't pay the bills. Unfortunately :(

Parents and educators both play a role. Students need scientifically and statistically correct information to keep them safe--what changes their bodies go through, how pregnancy and STIs happen, and how to have safe sex. Educators do NOT need to teach students the "morality" of sex. That is a parent's role. Much like religion, schools can teach children that are many different faiths--but parents may teach them how and why they worship in certain ways.

(Not that I'm saying anyone should "force" their view of morality on a child--as a teacher, I just don't want to be sued)

I can understand women taking to prostiution.

I'm not saying to hand em a copy of the Kama Sutra and say have fun junior but giving them a box of condoms and telling them that if they're too embarrassed to go buy them themselves that they can always ask you for more is certainly an option.

If you do this, make sure the condoms aren't expired. Kk?

this should be one of the courses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFmQAQ9EDeM

How to NOT be like Rick. lol

Awesome song tho heh

As long as their folks or grandparents didn't interfere with the Rick Jame is the Shit! you'd be ok.. lablel it all as bad.

If you do this, make sure the condoms aren't expired. Kk?

This is exactly why sex education should be mandatory in schools. My sex ed at school boiled down to half a science lesson with an extremely embarrassed chemistry teacher saying something along the lines of "you're all in top set boys so your pretty smart, don't get anyone pregnant or catch aids.". My paternts did the whole talking thing and were very open about it but not hugely experienced.

I never knew that condoms had an expiry date until I had been sexually ative for about 2 years and actually looked at a wrapper. It took me a while to work out why a non-food item had a best before date printed on it.

Which is why I said, "people being as they are, I have no problem with the schools doing it, as long as the parents are notified that it's taking place and have the option of opting out."

I don't see why sex-ed should have any sort of special "opt out." If parents don't want their child to learn the curriculum their school teaches, said parents can either put the child in a different school or homeschool - just like they would have to in order to "opt out" of any other subject.

Opting out of a school-provided program does not prevent learning about a subject, unless that specific program is the only possible avenue for doing so. It's been my experience that a lot of the people who do opt out do so because they wish to educate their children on the subject themselves. That's hardly preventing them from learning about it.

Yes, if by "educate their children on the subject themselves" you actually mean, "keep a great deal of information out of their childrens' hands in order to keep them 'innocent' or 'pure' or some other such nonsense."

Yes, if by "educate their children on the subject themselves" you actually mean, "keep a great deal of information out of their childrens' hands in order to keep them 'innocent' or 'pure' or some other such nonsense."

No, I pretty much meant what I said. I usually do. When I do need someone to parse my statements and tell society at large 'what I really meant' though, I'll hire a publicist, instead of relying on random strangers.

but think the parent's should be notified that that is going to happen, and have the option of opting out

Riiiight. So then, when said parents opt their kid out, the kid doesnt learn about contraceptives, and gets pregnent, I get to listen to you and your cohorts bitch about your tax dollars going to support them via wellfare?

Riiiight. So then, when said parents opt their kid out, the kid doesnt learn about contraceptives, and gets pregnent, I get to listen to you and your cohorts bitch about your tax dollars going to support them via wellfare?

Your statement assumes the only possible place that a kid can possibly learn about contraceptives is a school program, which is demonstrably untrue. It also assumes that everyone who gets pregnant out of wedlock goes on welfare. As for the rest, treat any 'bitching' like most of the country treats Air America, and don't listen to it.

That assumes the only possible place that a kid can possibly learn about contraceptives is that program, which is demonstrably untrue.

Why would a parent pull their kid out of sex ed, if they werent concerned about them learning about contraceptives?

Im sure there are other reasons, but we're talking most common.

Wait what would be reason for not teaching sex ed.? I mean is there actually a reasonable objection to having your kid in a sex ed. class. (for the record I don't have kids)

Why would a parent pull their kid out of sex ed, if they werent concerned about them learning about contraceptives?

I don't know. If I knew why people do the things they do, I'd put it a book and retire obscenely wealthy. But even if a parent did pull their child from a sex-ed class because they were concerned about them learning about contraceptives, it doesn't follow from that, that they don't want the kid learning about contraceptives. At most, it means that they don't want the kid learning about contraceptives from the school. Maybe they have plans to teach the kid about contraceptives themselves.

I mean is there actually a reasonable objection to having your kid in a sex ed. class.

'Reasonable' as defined by who?

'Reasonable' as defined by who?

Honestly I guess thats the issue. I would have defined it as "a decision based on reason" (as opposed to blind faith)

Wait what would be reason for not teaching sex ed.? I mean is there actually a reasonable objection to having your kid in a sex ed. class. (for the record I don't have kids)

If you suspect, but can't prove that the teacher is a child molester, and the last two parents who dug too deeply haven't returned from the "Hawaiian vacation" they left on eight months ago?

No, I pretty much meant what I said. I usually do. When I do need someone to parse my statements and tell society at large 'what I really meant' though, I'll hire a publicist, instead of relying on random strangers.

I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the people who opt their children out of sex ed classes actually just want to teach said children the information themselves.

I have, on the other hand, seen quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

Let the kids watch cats and cows reproduce while they're still young; it needn't be something in the dark, but a natural thing that is done after marrage; therefore, teach them about no sex outside of marriage.

How young is too young? How old is too old? Who should educate children about this? School? Parents? Combo?

Too young is usually before they turn about 10 I think, you can never ever be too old though.

Yes we should educate children about this, preferably before they turn 12.

Its the responsibility of the parents; that being said so many parents don't want the responsibility that the best choice is school or a combination of school and home.

PS I think a lot of parents need to be sexually educated to.

Let the kids watch cats and cows reproduce while they're still young; it needn't be something in the dark, but a natural thing that is done after marrage; therefore, teach them about no sex outside of marriage.

Sounds like a good thoery in practice but when i was a little kid I was smart enough to realize that cats and cows didn't get married.

Too young is usually before they turn about 10 I think, you can never ever be too old though.

Why is that too young?

You are aware, I presume, that some enter puberty before that age? That young girls sometimes start their periods as early as 9?

PS I think a lot of parents need to be sexually educated to.

This is certainly true.

Why is that too young?

You are aware, I presume, that some enter puberty before that age? That young girls sometimes start their periods as early as 9?


Hence the disclaiming term usually. Its in there, and I didn't edit it I promise.
Most people don't enter puberty until 11-12 and plenty of people don't seem mature enough to handle sex ed by the age 30 these days.

Hence the disclaiming term usually. Its in there, and I didn't edit it I promise.

We don't know exactly when someone is going to start puberty. If you're actually going to wait until right before (which I think is a bad idea), you should probably only wait until right before the young end - to make sure that no one gets caught off guard by it.

Most people don't enter puberty until 11-12 and plenty of people don't seem mature enough to handle sex ed by the age 30 these days.

Mature enough to handle sex and mature enough to learn about sex are really two different things.

As far as my opinion goes, I think someone is old enough to begin learning about sex, biology, reproduction, their body parts, etc. as soon as they are old enough to ask.

As far as my opinion goes, I think someone is old enough to begin learning about sex, biology, reproduction, their body parts, etc. as soon as they are old enough to ask.

Thats your opinion, mine differs, thats whats so cool about opinions.

Thats your opinion, mine differs, thats whats so cool about opinions.

The difference being that the implementation of your opinion endangers children.

What about the 5-year old who is being molested and doesn't understand well enough to seek help?

What about the 9-year old who ends up with an STI or pregnant and has absolutely no idea what is happening to her body?

What about the child who gets a yeast infection and doesn't ask her parents for help because the only impression she's gotten about her girly bits is that they are not to be talked about?

How about the young boy who, finding that his parents won't answer his questions, goes to older, misinformed boys and gets all sorts of nonsense information?

Knowledge about these things doesn't hurt children. Lack of said knowledge, on the other hand, can and does.

The difference being that the implementation of your opinion endangers children.

What about the 5-year old who is being molested and doesn't understand well enough to seek help?

What about the 9-year old who ends up with an STI or pregnant and has absolutely no idea what is happening to her body?

What about the child who gets a yeast infection and doesn't ask her parents for help because the only impression she's gotten about her girly bits is that they are not to be talked about?

How about the young boy who, finding that his parents won't answer his questions, goes to older, misinformed boys and gets all sorts of nonsense information?

Knowledge about these things doesn't hurt children. Lack of said knowledge, on the other hand, can and does.

Yeah, just ask Bristol Palin.

The difference being that the implementation of your opinion endangers children.

What about the 5-year old who is being molested and doesn't understand well enough to seek help?

Does he need to know about the whole process, or is a general understanding about "private parts" enough to suffice?

What about the 9-year old who ends up with an STI or pregnant and has absolutely no idea what is happening to her body?

Does that one actually happen a lot? I mean 13, sure. But 9?

Does he need to know about the whole process, or is a general understanding about "private parts" enough to suffice?

General understanding about "private parts" is really the bare minimum here - and the understanding that "private" doesn't mean "too embarrassing to talk about, particularly if something is wrong.

But, like I said, if the child asks further questions, I see no reason not to answer. I knew about the basic mechanics of sex by the time I was 6 or 7, although I honestly couldn't fathom why anyone would want to do it.

Does that one actually happen a lot? I mean 13, sure. But 9?

Does it happen a lot? No. Does it happen? Yes. Is it something that should be avoided? YES

Why are you ignoring the other situations? No answer for them?

The difference being that the implementation of your opinion endangers children.

What about the 5-year old who is being molested and doesn't understand well enough to seek help?

What about the 9-year old who ends up with an STI or pregnant and has absolutely no idea what is happening to her body?

What about the child who gets a yeast infection and doesn't ask her parents for help because the only impression she's gotten about her girly bits is that they are not to be talked about?

How about the young boy who, finding that his parents won't answer his questions, goes to older, misinformed boys and gets all sorts of nonsense information?

Knowledge about these things doesn't hurt children. Lack of said knowledge, on the other hand, can and does.

*sigh* Why the fuck do people always demand I write a 2,000 word essay on my exact stance on any given issue 2-3 times a day when I am working an 18 hour shift on Sunday?

Explain this sufficiently to me in 4 paragraphs 12 point font double spaced and maybe I'll take the time to spell out exactly what I mean.

*sigh* Why the fuck do people always demand I write a 2,000 word essay on my exact stance on any given issue 2-3 times a day when I am working an 18 hour shift on Sunday?

Explain this sufficiently to me in 4 paragraphs 12 point font double spaced and maybe I'll take the time to spell out exactly what I mean.

I'm not asking for an essay. I'm asking why you think we should keep children in the dark, particularly when doing so endangers them.

Why is any age "too young" to know about their body parts and what they do/will do?

I'm not asking for an essay. I'm asking why you think we should keep children in the dark, particularly when doing so endangers them.

Why is any age "too young" to know about their body parts and what they do/will do?

I'm talking about sex ed, sitting kids down in front of a film projector and showing them pictures of various sexual organs and describing in detail what they are and what they do, showing people how to use things like condoms, talking about things like why you have hair in funny places and you smell funny when you miss out on a shower.

Things like if your penis hurts then tell someone about it fall under the 'common sense' category in my mind. There is a difference between telling someone not to be ashamed of the places they piss from and telling them how babies are really made.

I'm talking about sex ed, sitting kids down in front of a film projector and showing them pictures of various sexual organs and describing in detail what they are and what they do, showing people how to use things like condoms, talking about things like why you have hair in funny places and you smell funny when you miss out on a shower.

(a) These things are not all sex ed entails.

(b) What part of:

As far as my opinion goes, I think someone is old enough to begin learning about sex, biology, reproduction, their body parts, etc. as soon as they are old enough to ask.

suggests projectors or demonstrations of condom use? You said you disagreed with the above statement.

Things like if your penis hurts then tell someone about it fall under the 'common sense' category in my mind. There is a difference between telling someone not to be ashamed of the places they piss from and telling them how babies are really made.

Not really. Because when they ask why they have different parts than someone else, and your response is something like "We'll talk about that when you're older," you make it clear that there is something "naughty" or forbidden about those parts.

Not to mention the fact that, if you're not wanting to tell a child how babies are really made, you either have to say, "I'm not going to talk about that," or make something up and lie to the children. But to what end? Why should you do either? Is there something inherently harmful about this knowledge?

Fact: Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing STD's.


Um, no, it's not, unless things like "rape exists" and "several STIs can be transmitted in quite a few ways other than engaging in sexual intercourse" have magically become non-facts. I'm all for promoting abstinence as a smart choice, but it's just plain wrong to tell kids that all they need to do to stay safe is decide not to fuck.

To answer the initial question, I'm with several people in the "as soon as they ask, and before puberty" camp, and I honestly can't understand opposing positions well at all. Given the choice between "I will feel sorta awkward because my baby is learning about things that embarrass me a little to talk about" and "my child might be really frightened when her body starts changing and she doesn't know why, or might be abused by someone and not know that it's not his fault or how to make it stop, or might have a health problem and be afraid to tell me because she thinks the affected parts are 'dirty,' or might have unprotected sex because he didn't know better and end up with a terrible disease, and so forth," I genuinely cannot fathom how any parent could prefer the latter. I am absolutely in favor of school sex ed with or without parental consent, in the same way I am in favor of arithmetic with or without parental consent. I don't CARE if addition gives you the willies; it is not reasonable for any parent to deliberately deprive their children of information that is necessary for them to live a normal, functional life.

(a) These things are not all sex ed entails.

(b) What part of:



suggests projectors or demonstrations of condom use? You said you disagreed with the above statement.



Not really. Because when they ask why they have different parts than someone else, and your response is something like "We'll talk about that when you're older," you make it clear that there is something "naughty" or forbidden about those parts.

Not to mention the fact that, if you're not wanting to tell a child how babies are really made, you either have to say, "I'm not going to talk about that," or make something up and lie to the children. But to what end? Why should you do either? Is there something inherently harmful about this knowledge?

:rolleyes: Remember my statement about essays? I don't disagree with you but I refuse to spend/totally lack the time to go into detail. You continue to vehemently accuse me of diagreeing.

I've always been pretty confused why "Sex Ed" isn't just renamed as part of a wider subject/theme/lesson and taught from a very young age from when a child is 3 or 4, along with topics like 'Relationships', 'Different Types of Love' and whatnots.

My own Sex Ed was pathetic, I have no memory of watching any video in school - I think I have a vague memory of a Year 7 Biology/Chemistry Science teacher discussing a few sexual topic stuff with us on a rainy afternoon. Not that I think it's affected me all that much as my Mom has always been open with me about most things so I asked her a few things to clear stuff up for me.
:p

Also, I have a few memories of me and some friends trying to figure out if our foreskin pulls back on its own when you have sex :P and that was in Year 5, so at the age of 10 I was trying to figure stuff out with my friends heh.

I really do think a lot of ignorance/immaturity/bad relationships could be helped with by talking about relationships and eventually the mechanics of sex from early ages - possibly the mechanics of sex from age 7 or 8 latest?

When I was in grade 5 to 7 "sex ed" was called "family life"

:rolleyes: Remember my statement about essays?

If you need to write an essay to explain your position, you probably haven't thought it through very well.

If you need to write an essay to explain your position, you probably haven't thought it through very well.

Or I have and you just want to be argumentive which IMHO is how it seems to me. You're asking me to go into vast and extreme detail and I do not have the time nor the mindset to do so so you are SOL.

Wait what would be reason for not teaching sex ed.? I mean is there actually a reasonable objection to having your kid in a sex ed. class. (for the record I don't have kids)
Maybe if the parents don't approve of the curriculum? I remember we were taught about various forms of contraception, which many people believe is immoral. The extreme opposite is an abstinence-only curriculum...which many people believe is immoral. I still don't think parents should have the option to opt out, though. If they disagree, they can tell their children they disapprove, and hope the children listen to them over the teacher. If they're really afraid, there's always private/home school.

Or I have

*snip*

No, you haven't. You haven't given me a single reason not to give children the information they ask for. Not one.

No, you haven't. You haven't given me a single reason not to give children the information they ask for. Not one.

Because you yourself provided them and then decided I disagree.

I'm talking about sex ed, like they teach in public schools, about puberty and birth control and all the scientific crap they prattle on about.

You're talking about common sense.

When I say where babies REALLY come from I'm talking about the entire scenario with the egg and the sperm and the uteris and all the buttons and knobs and dials and cells involved therein. I'm not going to explain that to a small child who won't understand half of what I just told them. Hell I don't know exactly what I would tell a small child except that it would be something truthful and probably simplified, and thankfully its not my fucking place to do so.

You want to construe my remakrs as lies and outright fallicies go on ahead and do so, I am too tired and too busy to care.

lol when I signed in the first topic was. "sex ed (101)"

Does that one actually happen a lot? I mean 13, sure. But 9?

Getting struck by lightning doesn't happen a lot either. We still teach kids to seek shelter from thunderstorms.

Maybe if the parents don't approve of the curriculum? I remember we were taught about various forms of contraception, which many people believe is immoral.

Good for them. There children are not being required to USE contraceptives, just to learn that they exist and this is how they are use IF you choose to use them. Some parents find learning about evolution to be immoral. We don't let them opt their kids out of science class.

General understanding about "private parts" is really the bare minimum here - and the understanding that "private" doesn't mean "too embarrassing to talk about, particularly if something is wrong.

I meant private more along the lines of the parts in question being a matter for which said child has full authority. As in private not because you can't talk about it with parents, but private because it's nobody's business but yours.

Only more eloquently than I actually said it up there.


But, like I said, if the child asks further questions, I see no reason not to answer. I knew about the basic mechanics of sex by the time I was 6 or 7, although I honestly couldn't fathom why anyone would want to do it.

Does it happen a lot? No. Does it happen? Yes. Is it something that should be avoided? YES
Getting struck by lightning doesn't happen a lot either. We still teach kids to seek shelter from thunderstorms.

Alright, alright. Christ, I'm sorry I needed a little time to wrap my head around the concept before I got righteously furified.

Why are you ignoring the other situations? No answer for them?

Eh, just for starters, are you asking out of curiousity? Or are you on the attack? 'Cuz I feel like a verbal beatdown is being just held back.

As for the first, I know nothing about yeast infections, so I don't really feel qualified to address that situation. Also as to the second one, no, I didn't really have any issue with the point being addressed. I'm not sure why you're assuming that I disagree with you on these points. I was just curious on the first two.

So..uh...knife down? Please?

I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the people who opt their children out of sex ed classes actually just want to teach said children the information themselves. I have, on the other hand, seen quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

Because after all, your personal experiences are the definitive standard...

Because after all, your personal experiences are the definitive standard...

Well, if you can think of a reason why you wouldn't want your child to learn about sex at school, out with it.
I can't think of a single sensible one, but if you know more, by all means, do share.

Kids should learn the names for their genitals the same time they learn the names of other body parts. Why not? Arm, ear, nose, penis, vagina, etc. Don't see any reason why kindergarteners can't handle that kind of info.

From the parents' point of view, your kid is old enough to learn about sex as soon as they're asking questions about it.

From the school's point of view, it is essential for public health that children learn the basics about sex, reproduction, contraception, and STDs before they reach puberty. I'd say starting in 3rd grade would probably be ok, though earlier wouldn't hurt. Any later than 5th grade and you're too late already, because there are kids who start puberty around 10 years old.

Well, if you can think of a reason why you wouldn't want your child to learn about sex at school, out with it.
I can't think of a single sensible one, but if you know more, by all means, do share.

Well, if the parents have sexually molested the child, they probably do not want it to know that all those "special excerises" are in fact called "rape".

Or perhaps they like the idea of the kid learning all kinds of different information from numerous sources, so that all the kids in school can contradict eachother.
Oh wait - I forgot. Kids are the summum of innocence and would never, ever even consider talking about sex with eachother, let alone admire the dirty magazine one of them nicked from their older brother.

If they are old enough to ask “where do babies come from”, they are old enough to know the truth. I’d think that conversation would generally happen before they start school (it did with my two) so I’d think the parents should be their first sex ed teachers. But, yes, of course schools should teach it too. They teach the respiratory system, the skeletal system, the nervous system, et al. Why would the reproductive system not be taught, too? It’s biology. Could I opt out of the school teaching my kids adverbs because I think that adverbs are better taught in the home? It’s absurd to think that you’d need special permission to learn any subject.

My nine year old has to correct all the misconceptions other kids have about how their bodies work. It’s frightening to think that they are getting information from other kids because their parents are too lazy to talk to them. She said they start with “The Movies” later this spring. Can’t happen soon enough, I’d say.

Because you yourself provided them and then decided I disagree.

No, I provided reasons that it is dangerous to withhold information from children.

You still have not provided a single reason that one should withhold said information. Is it your default that all information is kept from children except on a strict need-to-know basis or something?

I'm talking about sex ed, like they teach in public schools, about puberty and birth control and all the scientific crap they prattle on about.

I'm talking about sex ed in public schools as well. They don't start out with all the information in the first few years. They start out with more basic things and include more details as the years go on - sort of like they do with any other subject.

When I say where babies REALLY come from I'm talking about the entire scenario with the egg and the sperm and the uteris and all the buttons and knobs and dials and cells involved therein. I'm not going to explain that to a small child who won't understand half of what I just told them. Hell I don't know exactly what I would tell a small child except that it would be something truthful and probably simplified, and thankfully its not my fucking place to do so.

Now I'm confused. You disagreed with me when I said that a child's questions should be answered. Now it's ok as long as it is simplified to their understanding?

Did you think I was planning on teaching advanced biology to a 5-year old?


I meant private more along the lines of the parts in question being a matter for which said child has full authority. As in private not because you can't talk about it with parents, but private because it's nobody's business but yours.

I agree. Unfortunately, children often get the impression that "private" means "don't talk about it, period." That needs to be avoided.

Eh, just for starters, are you asking out of curiousity? Or are you on the attack? 'Cuz I feel like a verbal beatdown is being just held back.

Last night, it was a little of both. I apologize.

I'm not sure why you're assuming that I disagree with you on these points. I was just curious on the first two.

Sorry again. I got you mixed up with SaintB, who has made it quite clear that he does disagree.


Because after all, your personal experiences are the definitive standard...

No, my personal experiences simply confirm what I can see in the rest of the data out there. I've seen the reasons parents give for trying to pull their kids out of sex-ed classes. I've seen uproar over a magazine that dared to try and teach young girls the names of their body parts. I've seen the statistics on what is and is not known by the children of these parents. And, yes, on top of all that, I do have anecdotal experience as well.

The truth of the matter is that all of that evidence adds up to tell me that parents who wish to "opt out" of sex ed classes do so to keep their children ignorant, not because they're going to teach the information themselves. Most of the time, they even outright say so.

If you do this, make sure the condoms aren't expired. Kk?

of course, after a scare a few years ago with an ex its a must. jus like u check the date on milk check the date on ur protection!

Good for them. There children are not being required to USE contraceptives, just to learn that they exist and this is how they are use IF you choose to use them. Some parents find learning about evolution to be immoral. We don't let them opt their kids out of science class.
No, but that would be a reason parents would not want their children to have the class. I don't think it's a good reason, but it's a possible one.

Fact: Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing STD's.

And this, kids, is why we need comprehensive sex ed.

No, Redwulf, that is not a fact. It is, actually, an extremely dangerous lie. I'm very sorry that somebody lied to you, and I'm sorry that nobody has yet corrected you, but I have to beg you to please please please please PLEASE stop spreading the lie around. This is a lie that hurts people, gets people sick, and can even kill people.

There are dozens of STDs that you could contract even while abstaining from sex. There are dozens of STDs you can get even if you're a virgin.

If there's one thing people get from reading this thread, I hope it is this:

ABSTINENCE DOES NOT PROVIDE 100% PROTECTION AGAINST STDs. Anybody who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or lying. Don't take their advice on anything.

I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the people who opt their children out of sex ed classes actually just want to teach said children the information themselves.

I have, on the other hand, seen quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.
Ditto.

And this thread just further reinforces that view, at least for me. The only people arguing against teaching sex ed in school are the people who basically are squigged out by the notion of kids knowing these things.

ABSTINENCE DOES NOT PROVIDE 100% PROTECTION AGAINST STDs.
What makes a disease an STD? I can catch HIV and still abstain, but that's considered a STD. On the other hand, I could easily catch a cold during intercourse, but that's not considered one. You're involved in some sort of biology; what's the definition?

Anybody who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or lying. Don't take their advice on anything.
I'm not sure you shouldn't take their advice on anything. Being wrong and being wise are not mutually exclusive.

The only people arguing against teaching sex ed in school are the people who basically are squigged out by the notion of kids knowing these things.

Well, that solves that question. I don't know why we bothered debating the issue for six-odd pages when someone could have dashed a quick e-mail off to you and the whole thing could have been resolved in a couple of minutes.

Any other complex, controversial Gordian knots you'd like to cut through for us?

I voted other.

Sex ed should begin at 12yrs old. along health classes that go into puberty. it should, as in a perfect world, be taught by both parents, and teachers. Parents should be made to understand that teaching only one form of education leads children to far more mistakes and to protect their child it should be an all encompasing form of education that will leave their child better able to understand the situations, the complications, the possible results and all the options that are available. and by starting at an early age, it give everyone time to adjust and be comfortable with the subject to avoid embarrassements that may cause one to remain silent when they should be seeking advice.

oh and it shouldn't be a one time class. maybe three years, going into the various myths, religious aspects, history and contraceptive measures used in the past and today.

And this, kids, is why we need comprehensive sex ed.

No, Redwulf, that is not a fact. It is, actually, an extremely dangerous lie. I'm very sorry that somebody lied to you, and I'm sorry that nobody has yet corrected you, but I have to beg you to please please please please PLEASE stop spreading the lie around. This is a lie that hurts people, gets people sick, and can even kill people.

There are dozens of STDs that you could contract even while abstaining from sex. There are dozens of STDs you can get even if you're a virgin.

If there's one thing people get from reading this thread, I hope it is this:

ABSTINENCE DOES NOT PROVIDE 100% PROTECTION AGAINST STDs. Anybody who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or lying. Don't take their advice on anything.

This is the first I've ever actually heard about this. Could you elaborate please?

This is the first I've ever actually heard about this. Could you elaborate please?

A STD is any disease likely to be transmitted by sexual contact. Obviously, that doesn't rule out other modes of transmission.

A STD is any disease likely to be transmitted by sexual contact. Obviously, that doesn't rule out other modes of transmission.

Like how AIDS can be contracted through any contact with infected blood, semen, vaginal fluid, preseminal fluid, and breast milk?

This is the first I've ever actually heard about this. Could you elaborate please?
sometimes it depends on the individual's definition of abstinence.

The whole idea that sex education is bad makes me raise an eyebrow. Education is good. Obviously, we do not want propoganda but a good solid education based on facts and advice seems like a good idea.

I think that sex ed needs a greater emphasis on relationship skills.

The whole idea that sex education is bad makes me raise an eyebrow. Education is good. Obviously, we do not want propoganda but a good solid education based on facts and advice seems like a good idea.

Unfortunately people tend to disagree what the facts are. Some parents for instance did not like the fact that a teacher merely explained homosexuals existed, and refused to add that they were "depraved filth that will surely rot in hell for all eternity" - which according to said parents also was a fact (yes, this really happened).

Sex ed should begin at 12yrs old. along health classes that go into puberty.

Why that age?

And what do you mean by "along health classes that go into puberty"? Are you counting health classes that discuss puberty as part of sex ed? Or as something separate?

Why that age? I believe that's when most children start to go through puberty. and some of the changes include the preperation for child bearing in girls.

And what do you mean by "along health classes that go into puberty"? Are you counting health classes that discuss puberty as part of sex ed? Or as something separate?
more like adding sex ed as part of health classes focusing on the child's changing body. by making sex a natural part of growing up, you can start removing the aspects that make it hard for some parents to talk about it with their children (other than sex before marriage is bad.)

I believe that's when most children start to go through puberty. and some of the changes include the preperation for child bearing in girls.

Why wait until they've already started? And what about the children who start 2-3 years before that?

There have been cases of 9 and 10 year old girls getting pregnant - often without having any idea what is happening to them.

more like adding sex ed as part of health classes focusing on the child's changing body. by making sex a natural part of growing up, you can start removing the aspects that make it hard for some parents to talk about it with their children (other than sex before marriage is bad.)

I agree it should be a part of health classes, but I think you should start explaining to a child what will happen during puberty before it's already happening. And if we're going to wait until "just before", then I think we should only wait until just before the earliest children start, not the average or latest.

Why wait until they've already started? And what about the children who start 2-3 years before that?

There have been cases of 9 and 10 year old girls getting pregnant - often without having any idea what is happening to them. it's only my opinon. so it is subject to change.

I agree it should be a part of health classes, but I think you should start explaining to a child what will happen during puberty before it's already happening. And if we're going to wait until "just before", then I think we should only wait until just before the earliest children start, not the average or latest. sounds good. so when would you teach sex ed? 9? 10?

it's only my opinon. so it is subject to change.

=)

sounds good. so when would you teach sex ed? 9? 10?

In an institutionalized sense? I'd start with the very basics (including good touch/bad touch type things) in the first year. I'd want to see them start covering what will happen during puberty by 7 or 8. I'm not exactly sure when would be the best year to start formally teaching about sex itself, but it should definitely be before students start doing it.

In a parental sense, I think sex education should start as soon as your child starts asking questions about it. If a parent is too embarrassed to answer said questions, he should find someone else who isn't and/or get the child a book on the subject.

Another note: I don't think a teacher should ever feel that she has to refuse to answer questions, either. If a kindergartner is asking about where babies come from or about the differences between boys and girls, the teacher should feel comfortable answering those questions.

=)



In an institutionalized sense? I'd start with the very basics (including good touch/bad touch type things) in the first year. I'd want to see them start covering what will happen during puberty by 7 or 8. I'm not exactly sure when would be the best year to start formally teaching about sex itself, but it should definitely be before students start doing it.

In a parental sense, I think sex education should start as soon as your child starts asking questions about it. If a parent is too embarrassed to answer said questions, he should find someone else who isn't and/or get the child a book on the subject.

Another note: I don't think a teacher should ever feel that she has to refuse to answer questions, either. If a kindergartner is asking about where babies come from or about the differences between boys and girls, the teacher should feel comfortable answering those questions.

In most circumstances I'd say that the teacher should also let the parents know, at least informally, that the questions came up and what answers she gave. Even if most of you think that parents have no right to determine what their kids are being taught and when, they do, at least, have the right to know what their kids are being taught and when.

In most circumstances I'd say that the teacher should also let the parents know, at least informally, that the questions came up and what answers she gave. Even if most of you think that parents have no right to determine what their kids are being taught and when, they do, at least, have the right to know what their kids are being taught and when.

Should a teacher always contact a parent when children ask questions about something she didn't specifically plan to teach that day? Are parents even aware of precisely what she meant to teach that day?

If a parent really wants to know what his child is learning on a daily basis, shouldn't he be talking to the child? Talking to the teacher is also important, of course, but not every day.

Meanwhile, parents do have a right to determine what their kids are being taught and when. They can lobby to have curricula changed and/or find a school that teaches the way they want. If they're really worried about exactly what their child is taught all the time, then they need to be homeschooling. It's the only way that they can exert that kind of control (and even then they'd have to avoid homeschool co-ops).

Unfortunately people tend to disagree what the facts are. Some parents for instance did not like the fact that a teacher merely explained homosexuals existed, and refused to add that they were "depraved filth that will surely rot in hell for all eternity" - which according to said parents also was a fact (yes, this really happened).

Wow there is so much that is wrong with that parents' statement and I am a pretty homophobic guy. There are a lot of goofy parents out there. My wife is a teacher and I hear about some crazy ones. The sad thing is that the school lets itself be controlled by a lot of the crazies.

One parent objected to my wife playing hangman (a spelling game kinda like wheel of fortune) for some absurd leftist reason. Her supervisor told her to not do hangman anymore with any of her students.

If parents do not like public education they should enroll their children in some kind of crazy private school not impose their madness on the other children by restricting how a teacher does her job.

=)



In an institutionalized sense? I'd start with the very basics (including good touch/bad touch type things) in the first year. I'd want to see them start covering what will happen during puberty by 7 or 8. I'm not exactly sure when would be the best year to start formally teaching about sex itself, but it should definitely be before students start doing it.

In a parental sense, I think sex education should start as soon as your child starts asking questions about it. If a parent is too embarrassed to answer said questions, he should find someone else who isn't and/or get the child a book on the subject.

Another note: I don't think a teacher should ever feel that she has to refuse to answer questions, either. If a kindergartner is asking about where babies come from or about the differences between boys and girls, the teacher should feel comfortable answering those questions.

sounds good. I kinda used 12 as when sex ed should start because that's the latter end of the 'tweenie years. maybe a 10-12 year area?

and I would like MORE interaction between parents and teachers. children with 'embarrassing' questions should feel like they can go to adults with their concerns.

Should a teacher always contact a parent when children ask questions about something she didn't specifically plan to teach that day? Are parents even aware of precisely what she meant to teach that day?

If a parent really wants to know what his child is learning on a daily basis, shouldn't he be talking to the child? Talking to the teacher is also important, of course, but not every day.

Meanwhile, parents do have a right to determine what their kids are being taught and when. They can lobby to have curricula changed and/or find a school that teaches the way they want. If they're really worried about exactly what their child is taught all the time, then they need to be homeschooling. It's the only way that they can exert that kind of control (and even then they'd have to avoid homeschool co-ops).

1. Children don't always communicate with parents. And because sex and sexuality are sensitive subjects, I believe it's incumbent on the adult teacher to communicate with the (hopefully) adult parents about it. It's, at very least, a matter of courtesy between the two major adult factors in a child's life.

2. If you've read the posts, you would realize that many NSers think that kids should be taught certain things, like sex education, whether the parents agree to it or not. And the state has certain requirements for what is taught and how it is to be taught that apply to public school, private school and home school. In other words, subject matter is standardized. Smunkee, who home schools her kids, will tell you that home schooling isn't a matter of teaching the kids what you want them to know, it's a matter of making sure the kids actually learn what the schools are supposed to be teaching.

1. Children don't always communicate with parents.

Especially not if parents aren't communicating with the children.

And because sex and sexuality are sensitive subjects, I believe it's incumbent on the adult teacher to communicate with the (hopefully) adult parents about it. It's, at very least, a matter of courtesy between the two major adult factors in a child's life.

I don't see why sex and sexuality are so sensitive. Obviously, if the teacher was telling kids to go out and have sex, that would be a problem. But answering a question like, "Where do babies come from?" I don't see why a teacher should feel the need to treat that any differently from "Why is the sky blue?"

2. If you've read the posts, you would realize that many NSers think that kids should be taught certain things, like sex education, whether the parents agree to it or not.

And I would agree. Even the most sheltered kids are going to learn it somewhere - but they'll probably be horribly misinformed if it isn't actually taught to them by someone competent enough to do so.

That said, there are ways that parents can keep their children ignorant if they so choose. I just don't think that opting out of certain knowledge taught in a public school should be one of those ways.

And the state has certain requirements for what is taught and how it is to be taught that apply to public school, private school and home school. In other words, subject matter is standardized. Smunkee, who home schools her kids, will tell you that home schooling isn't a matter of teaching the kids what you want them to know, it's a matter of making sure the kids actually learn what the schools are supposed to be teaching.

Actually, the impression I've gotten from Smunkee is that there are very few regulations on what curriculum is taught in homeschooling - and that homeschoolers wish to keep it that way.

Smunkee is a good parent and thus chooses to make sure her kids learn what they would learn at public schools and then some. But she's also told us about parents who let their kids spend all day learning speed cup stacking and don't bother with the standard subjects unless the child specifically asks for them.

Actually, the impression I've gotten from Smunkee is that there are very few regulations on what curriculum is taught in homeschooling - and that homeschoolers wish to keep it that way.
It depends on where you live. In Oklahoma, yeah. In New York, not so much.
http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp

Smunkee is a good parent and thus chooses to make sure her kids learn what they would learn at public schools and then some. But she's also told us about parents who let their kids spend all day learning speed cup stacking and don't bother with the standard subjects unless the child specifically asks for them.
They're called radical unschoolers and they are a minority of the homeschool community....although I'm not sure how we really count that, I mean they're basically anarchists, it's not like they're going to answer a census or show up to conventions or anything.

They're called radical unschoolers and they are a minority of the homeschool community....although I'm not sure how we really count that, I mean they're basically anarchists, it's not like they're going to answer a census or show up to conventions or anything.

You mean homeschooled children do not have to take standardised exams to verify their knowledge level in the USA :confused:?