I Wrote A Letter...Sex Ed A Must

[Impish]

There was an editorial piece in today's paper, "Sex Ed A Must".

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2011/05/24/sex-ed-a-must

 

This was my response to her:

 

Dear Ms. Jacobs,

 

In reading your editorial this morning, the one feeling it evoked was gratitude. Gratitude that I home school my three children.

 

I find the idea that children cannot possibly be properly educated about sex anywhere but in school, as a mandatory curricula, ridiculous. It completely steps on parental rights.

 

Not all children mature at the same rate. Not all families have the same perspective on issues. To treat all children as carbon copies of another, to force feed them information does them and their families a disservice.

 

The idea that 'they certainly don't want to learn about sex from their parents' is bogus. So is the statement that 'This isn't about religion or morality'. I would suggest that religion and morality absolutely do play a role. Perhaps not in as many homes as years gone by, but to toss it out as a non issue is to insult many families.

 

Parents should absolutely have the right to pull their children out of classes they find objectionable. Just because they are removing their child from these classes does not mean the children are being kept ignorant about sex education. It means that many families prefer to deal with questions and information their children may have and need at an appropriate level for their child.

 

Its up to the parents to raise their children. Not the government.

 

Respectfully,

[anissa]

Excellent! Good for you. Now you can sit back and see if fireworks ensue (light 'em up, I say).

[LauraGB]

Well, Imp, I sure did like you a lot before, but now I think I might love you. Brilliant letter!!

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I have a friend who homeschooled all of her children. This friend's daughter came to ME to talk about sex because her parents gave her no information beyond, "don't before marraige". This girl was serious with her boyfriend and wanted to wait until she got married, but she needed some practical advice. She wasn't taught about emotions, desire, hormones, "knowing thyself",etc.

 

I support mandatory sex education. Of course, it still wouldn't have helped my friend's daughter since she homeschooled and wouldn't have been covered by this law. (especially since we don't live in Canada. :tongue_smilie: )

[kchara]

Very nicely said, Imp!

[Kathleen in VA]

Well done!

[Hedgehog]

Go Imp! :thumbup1:

[Impish]

Her response:

 

Thanks for writing. I agree some parents might do a stellar job at teaching sex to their kids but most don’t or certainly don’t want to get into it with their kids.

I think most teens, for instance, would feel extremely uncomfortable talking about sexual topics with their parents.

So I support mandatory sex ed in schools. And the schools do teach it in an age-appropriate way — with more specifics at later ages.

Regards,

MJ

[anissa]

Her response:

 

Thanks for writing. I agree some parents might do a stellar job at teaching sex to their kids but most don’t or certainly don’t want to get into it with their kids.

I think most teens, for instance, would feel extremely uncomfortable talking about sexual topics with their parents.

So I support mandatory sex ed in schools. And the schools do teach it in an age-appropriate way — with more specifics at later ages.

Regards,

MJ

 

She uses the word "most" too much. It irks me when people make these sweeping statements.

[Impish]

My repsonse:

 

Thank you for your response.

 

The generalization of 'most teens' is in error. Many families treat sex education as a natural part of their parenting, adding more information as the child matures. To force all children to attend, despite parental objections is offensive. Unless one goes to each and every family to ascertain what they're teaching their children, the 'most' statement is based on assumption at best.

 

I'm not saying that sex ed shouldn't be in schools. I'm saying forcing everyone to participate, despite family objections is stepping on parental rights, and something the government should stay out of. The parents that object and pull their children are, more than likely, the parents that are addressing these issues in their own home. The parents I know personally that have no intention of having their child remain for sex ed classes are dealing and educating their children at home about these issues.

 

Making it mandatory is making the statement that parents cannot be trusted to adequately prepare their children about these matters, and only a government agency can possibly be up to the job.

 

There was a case in an Oakville, ON school where 7-8 graders were handed out condoms every Friday afternoon, and actively encouraged to 'go experiment'. In the name of sex ed. Is that acceptable? But it was government sex ed, how could it possibly be objectionable?

 

Religion and morality absolutely impact sex education. And so it should for those families who raise their children in that environment. It is an intregal part of many family's culture. To deny families the right to their culture is way overstepping of government boundaries. For what, the perceived good of the masses?

 

For the small percentage of families that opt out of current sex ed, are the statistics showing that sex ed is even all that effective for those that do attend? Considering the majority of students are receiving sex education, and the rise in STI numbers, I would suggest that the current education system isn't effective...making it mandatory for the small percentage that opt out isn't going to improve those numbers.

 

Allowing parents to remove their children from classes is really the only rational thing for the government to do.

 

Regards,

[Hedgehog]

Her response:

 

Thanks for writing. I agree some parents might do a stellar job at teaching sex to their kids but most don’t or certainly don’t want to get into it with their kids.

I think most teens, for instance, would feel extremely uncomfortable talking about sexual topics with their parents.

So I support mandatory sex ed in schools. And the schools do teach it in an age-appropriate way — with more specifics at later ages.

Regards,

MJ

 

According to whose ideas?

 

Silly old bat. :leaving:

[specialmama]

She is a looney. You go, Imp! :hurray:

[anissa]

She is a looney. You go, Imp! :hurray:

 

Unfortunately the loonies seem to be in control. These people are part of the ruling class who know more than we regular peasants do. Thanks Impish for getting my dander up...I think I'll go do math with the dc...I'm in the mood now.:001_smile:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Her response:

 

Thanks for writing. I agree some parents might do a stellar job at teaching sex to their kids but most don’t or certainly don’t want to get into it with their kids.

I think most teens, for instance, would feel extremely uncomfortable talking about sexual topics with their parents.

So I support mandatory sex ed in schools. And the schools do teach it in an age-appropriate way — with more specifics at later ages.

Regards,

MJ

 

Why would a teen be more comfortable talking about sex with a teacher, someone they see about five hours a week?

Why would they be more likely to engage in open discussion in a room with their peers, with all of the elements of school cliques and labeling and desire not to look foolish that is involved with that?

Are we really supposed to believe that a confused or curious teen is going to raise his or her hand in a room full of peers that they assume are more informed and ask questions that risk being made fun of? Really?

 

Physiological changes that are part of adolescence, ok. The physical workings of the reproductive system, yes, in the same way they teach about the digestive tract and the nervous system.

 

But to have a school teaching what is proper and acceptable in a physical relationship. No thank you.

 

(I think that the original article writer objects to parents handling the topic because she objects to the content of what they teach, not because there are so many parents avoiding the topic altogether.)

[Sebastian (a lady)]

And therein lies the flawed and frustrating philosophy of nearly every government mandate.

 

Some kids don't get sex ed at home, so let's pass a law making our version of it madatory for all.

 

Some kids are neglected at home, so let's pass a law requiring full-day schooling for all 4-and 5-year olds.

 

Some kids don't get great lunches from home, so let's pass a law requiring all children to eat only what we serve.

 

Why should it end at childhood? Some adults don't get adequate intim@te physical contact. Should we establish public brothels? Maybe a voucher system?

[Harriet Vane]

Well said, Imp, on all points.

[FO4UR]

Go Imp!!!:hurray:

[Harriet Vane]

I have a friend who homeschooled all of her children. This friend's daughter came to ME to talk about sex because her parents gave her no information beyond, "don't before marraige". This girl was serious with her boyfriend and wanted to wait until she got married, but she needed some practical advice. She wasn't taught about emotions, desire, hormones, "knowing thyself",etc.

 

I support mandatory sex education. Of course, it still wouldn't have helped my friend's daughter since she homeschooled and wouldn't have been covered by this law. (especially since we don't live in Canada. :tongue_smilie: )

 

While I can definitely agree that your friend did her daughter a clear disservice, that still does not convince me that government intervention is the solution. The government exists to administrate the basic services of a population within a geographic area. The government is NOT there to fix poor parenting--though it can and should step in where poor parenting crosses a line and becomes a crime (such as criminal child abuse). It's an important distinction--the government can address crime, and can administrate, but it is NOT there to parent children. Sex ed is not a matter of a crime against a child, particularly when the information is readily available, so it is inappropriate for the government to mandate a particular approach.

[Punks in Ontario]

Very well said Imp. :hurray:

[LidiyaDawn]

 

Allowing parents to remove their children from classes is really the only rational thing for the government to do.

 

What if parents decide that they don't want their child to participate in science classes that contain material that they find objectionable? (like say, evolution*)

 

…or social studies?

 

… or math?

 

*(which I believe is already happening in Alberta - seems to me there was something in the news about that…)

[Aquinas Academy]

Well said! Way to go Imp! :hurray:

[Impish]

Or what if parents object to public education and *gasp* homeschool?!

[Mynyel]

Humph, what are the statistics of the kids who are opted out that actually get the STD's?

 

I'll bet if they did a study and looked at the percentage of those who attend and those who don't attend the sex ed class that the ones who don't go are less likely to get them. They don't have all those ideas put in their heads.

 

Why, oh why do people seem to feel the need to infringe on everyone because of a few? If they know there are a few then just get those ones for the love of Pete.

 

There are more STD's in school now than when I was in school 20 years (*choke, gasp it's been 20?*) ago, and we didn't have sex ed.

 

Get of the high horse lady :P

[anissa]

Or what if parents object to public education and *gasp* homeschool?!

 

Ok, I was going to say something like this but didn't want to start something.

[Tarreymere]

 

 

For the small percentage of families that opt out of current sex ed, are the statistics showing that sex ed is even all that effective for those that do attend? Considering the majority of students are receiving sex education, and the rise in STI numbers, I would suggest that the current education system isn't effective...making it mandatory for the small percentage that opt out isn't going to improve those numbers.

 

 

 

So the writer of this article has statistics that state that homeschooled children and the children of parents that opt out of state sponsored sex-ed classes are the same children who are actually causing the rise in STDs? I doubt it.

Clearly whatever system of sex-ed that is currently being offered is not addressing the issue of STDs. Where are these actual children who are being diagnosed with these STDs being educated and has anyone asked these specific children if they were aware of the possibility of infection prior to engaging in sexual activity? I am willing to bet that most of them did have some level of awareness of the risk but chose to participate in sexual activities anyway.

Maybe the area the government needs to get involved with and address is the trend in popular culture to view sex as a casual recreational activity. Maybe the government should look into regulating the glamorization of casual sex and the promotion of sexual activity as a harmless and expected part of everyday teen and young adult life.

Forcing a few more children into clearly ineffective sex-ed classes isn't going to change the culture those children live in.

[LidiyaDawn]

Or what if parents object to public education and *gasp* homeschool?!

 

Was that to my questions? Because they most certainly have every right to do so if they object to the curriculum. :)

 

I'm talking about the ability to yank kids from this class and that class….while still using the system.

 

I don't know ~ I see a lot of good reasons for comprehensive human health education, including the aspects that deal with what gets lumped under "sex ed"…. and I also support families' rights to home educate if they don't like what the public/private/etc schools provide. (of course.. I'm a homeschooler! :D )

[I.Dup.]

Why should it end at childhood? Some adults don't get adequate intim@te physical contact. Should we establish public brothels? Maybe a voucher system?

 

Bahahaaha, good point! Although I'm sure some desperate men would support that idea. :glare:

 

Bravo, Imp.

[Mynyel]

What if parents decide that they don't want their child to participate in science classes that contain material that they find objectionable? (like say, evolution*)

 

…or social studies?

 

… or math?

 

*(which I believe is already happening in Alberta - seems to me there was something in the news about that…)

 

 

See, I am of a mind if a parent objects to the material then they need to be able to opt them out. Period. It is *NOT* the governments job to ANYTHING with my kids (or anyone's) unless there is irrefutable proof that a child is being harmed (and I am not talking educational neglect either).

 

 

Who made the rules on what a child is to be taught? If a child is going into a certain profession, then why does a child need to learn all the other fluff. I am sorry but a lot of education the government pushes on kids isn't always relevant to life. Like forcing a foreign language on them. My sisters took 3 years of Spanish in high school... you know what they retained? Nada. After three years you'd think they would know something right? *snort* right. I think they can count to 100 and know their colors. Yep, that's a valuable way to spend time in school.

 

No, the government should NEVER be allowed that much control over youth. NEVER.

 

*steps down off soapbox*

 

:001_smile::grouphug:

[Impish]

I believe that parents, even of children who are in public school, have the right to remain the authority figure in their children's lives.

 

For a family that believes in Creationism, yes, they should be allowed to pull a child out of a class on evolution. Public education shouldn't infringe on family culture. To be taught evolution as fact (which neither evolution nor Creatonism can claim, since neither can be replicated nor proven) can be damaging to a child's faith, and parents should absolutely have the right to intercede.

 

Evolution and Creationism is a matter of faith...be it in science, or the Bible. Therefore, in my mind, not a subject for school.

[snickelfritz]

I'm mixed.

 

My mother discussed nothing. NOTHING. When i got my cycle, she did talk to my younger sister. 2 days before I got married, she asked my sister to talk to me about birth control. I learned EVERYTHING I knew at school and from friends.

Edited May 25, 2011 by snickelfritz

[Impish]

My objection isn't to sex ed in school.

 

Its making it mandatory.

[Mynyel]

I'm mixed.

 

My mother discussed nothing. NOTHING. 2 days before I got married, she asked my sister to talk to me about birth control. I learned EVERYTHING I knew at school and from friends.

 

 

Agreed, there are cases. My beef is that because of the few cases (like yours for example) they blanket everyone. It shouldn't be that way. It should be there as an option not a requirement.

 

Parents shouldn't have to opt-out. They should have to opt-in, and be aware of every nuance that will be taught before they opt-in.

[specialmama]

I was (easily) able to opt out of dissection during biology class in high school. I sited "moral reasons" but really, it just grossed me out. Others opted out of PE for various reasons, and one girl in grades 4-8 had "library time" instead of LA. I believe her mom had enrolled her in a one-on-one class outside of school to address some giftedness in that area. The fact that this topic of opting out keeps coming up (specifically for sex ed) tells me that there are greater forces behind the movement to include compulsory sex-ed. Planned Parenthood et al comes to mind. :glare:

 

The (somewhat private) school my dd will be attending next year has a contract for us to sign stating that we are not expecting the school to step in and fulfill the parental obligation of education; rather we are working as a team to educate and as such, we have full disclosure of material taught and full authority to opt out of anything for whatever reason. We are not delegating our parental authority when it comes to education, we are partnering. I wish the government would adopt this school's stance on the matter.

 

It's funny because I really see the whole thing (compulsory sex ed) as a smokescreen. When it comes right down to it, it's an attack on family. If families were intact/strong/healthy/whathaveyou, then kids would not be seeking love in all the wrong places.

[specialmama]

Parents shouldn't have to opt-out. They should have to opt-in, and be aware of every nuance that will be taught before they opt-in.

 

THAT is the kind of outside-of-the-box thinking I really like! Bravo!

[Cricket]

And therein lies the flawed and frustrating philosophy of nearly every government mandate.

 

Some kids don't get sex ed at home, so let's pass a law making our version of it madatory for all.

 

Some kids are neglected at home, so let's pass a law requiring full-day schooling for all 4-and 5-year olds.

 

Some kids don't get great lunches from home, so let's pass a law requiring all children to eat only what we serve.

 

:iagree: Exactly! I believe in doing what you can to catch children who fall through the cracks but to impose blanket requirements on everyone to do so is ridiculous.

[LidiyaDawn]

My objection isn't to sex ed in school.

 

Its making it mandatory.

 

So let's say that I don't believe in girls doing higher math - anything beyond, say, eighth grade. Pretend that I have a "moral objection" based on [whatever]. (I don't - but *some people do* .. I've met a few.)

 

Should I then be able to have my daughter "opt out" of math class?

 

If I can't do it with math class, then why should it be an option for health class?

 

I homeschool because I don't like a lot of what goes on within the public school system… I don't insist on the school system (academics or otherwise) fitting MY personal beliefs… know what I mean?

 

If people don't like what the schools present, they have options.. they can homeschool, they can enrol their child in a private school, heck several provinces even have a Christian faith based public option! (Alberta, Ontario, and I think Saskatchewan?)

[snickelfritz]

Parents shouldn't have to opt-out. They should have to opt-in, and be aware of every nuance that will be taught before they opt-in.

 

Because, the parents who completely neglect any talk of reproduction will be proactive enough to opt their kids in?

 

My mom actually would have. She was involved in school things, just too embarrassed about all that stuff. But how many teachers can't get signed things back?

 

As long as a note goes home and parents can choose to opt out, I'm fine with the school handling it. Though.... I am going off the type of info I received in school.....which included a banana. :)

[Wheres Toto]

Because, the parents who completely neglect any talk of reproduction will be proactive enough to opt their kids in?

 

My mom actually would have. She was involved in school things, just too embarrassed about all that stuff. But how many teachers can't get signed things back?

 

As long as a note goes home and parents can choose to opt out, I'm fine with the school handling it. Though.... I am going off the type of info I received in school.....which included a banana. :)

:iagree:

 

The parents who are most involved with their kids, the ones most likely to actually talk to their kids about sex, are the ones who will be involved in their schooling, know what their kids are being taught and opt-out if they disagree. The parents who don't talk to their kids about things are probably the ones completely disinterested in finding out what their kids are learning and wouldn't bother returning a form to opt them in.

 

I don't know about opt-in/opt-out statistics but haven't there been ones that show that the more comprehensive the sex education curriculum, the lower the teen pregnancy rate? Off to search for links.

[stripe]

As long as a note goes home and parents can choose to opt out, I'm fine with the school handling it. Though.... I am going off the type of info I received in school.....which included a banana. :)

 

My high school sex ed teacher prefered talking about male anatomy. We talked abou birth control and diseases but not really acts per se. That being said, I have met tons of women who have no clue how their body works. I had an interesting discussion once at a party with a Catholic young woman taking a class on natural family planning and an older woman who'd used nfp for 10+ years, though I don't think she was Catholic. I also had a basic understanding of female reproductive matters. No one else there did.

[Teachin'Mine]

Way to go Imp!!!!!!! :)

[MrsBasil]

So let's say that I don't believe in girls doing higher math - anything beyond, say, eighth grade. Pretend that I have a "moral objection" based on [whatever]. (I don't - but *some people do* .. I've met a few.)

 

Should I then be able to have my daughter "opt out" of math class?

 

If I can't do it with math class, then why should it be an option for health class?

 

I homeschool because I don't like a lot of what goes on within the public school system… I don't insist on the school system (academics or otherwise) fitting MY personal beliefs… know what I mean?

 

If people don't like what the schools present, they have options.. they can homeschool, they can enrol their child in a private school, heck several provinces even have a Christian faith based public option! (Alberta, Ontario, and I think Saskatchewan?)

 

I see a difference between an academic class, like math, and sex ed. I don't believe a parent should be able to opt a student out of math, science, reading, or history because I believe academics are the school's job. If you sign your kid up for school you are giving them responsibility on what academics will be taught and how.

 

Also, those classes tend to be year round and year after year. Sex ed tends to be a couple of weeks at most during health and isn't, IME, taught yearly.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Was that to my questions? Because they most certainly have every right to do so if they object to the curriculum. :)

 

I'm talking about the ability to yank kids from this class and that class….while still using the system.

 

I don't know ~ I see a lot of good reasons for comprehensive human health education, including the aspects that deal with what gets lumped under "sex ed"…. and I also support families' rights to home educate if they don't like what the public/private/etc schools provide. (of course.. I'm a homeschooler! :D )

 

What is it about a brick and mortar school that makes it necessary to have a take it all or leave it all approach? Would my child be less able to understand chemistry if he weren't in history the period before? Would his absence from PE make German more difficult to understand?

 

I am wary of trying to mix homeschool and public school because I think the scheduling is too much of a burden on everything we're trying to do at home. Not just the schedule of class dates, but transit time and time checking in and out of the building. A 50 minute class would easily eat 2 hours out of our day.

 

But I've never really understood why a student ought not be able to take a cafeteria approach to education. (Guess I've read too much Heinlein, who posited that worthy education was what one person was willing to pay to learn.)

[KrissiK]

I have a friend who homeschooled all of her children. This friend's daughter came to ME to talk about sex because her parents gave her no information beyond, "don't before marraige". This girl was serious with her boyfriend and wanted to wait until she got married, but she needed some practical advice. She wasn't taught about emotions, desire, hormones, "knowing thyself",etc.

 

I support mandatory sex education. Of course, it still wouldn't have helped my friend's daughter since she homeschooled and wouldn't have been covered by this law. (especially since we don't live in Canada. :tongue_smilie: )

 

This is not a good reason for the government to get involved. I will admit that there are probably some areas that I do and will fall short in as a parent. However, I absolutely do not want the govt. to make up for my shortcomings. This is why we are careful that our children have other relationships with adults we trust and share our values so that if my kids don't feel comfortable (heaven forbid, but it can happen) talking about things with me or my husband, then they can go to grandparents, or an uncle or aunt, or a Sunday School teacher, pastor, family friend. I would hope my kids feel they can come to me for anything, but if they can't, then I will try to provide them with someone who they can talk to and the govt. can just stay out of my life, thank you!

[LidiyaDawn]

So let's say that I don't believe in girls doing higher math - anything beyond, say, eighth grade. Pretend that I have a "moral objection" based on [whatever]. (I don't - but *some people do* .. I've met a few.)

 

Should I then be able to have my daughter "opt out" of math class?

 

If I can't do it with math class, then why should it be an option for health class?

 

I homeschool because I don't like a lot of what goes on within the public school system… I don't insist on the school system (academics or otherwise) fitting MY personal beliefs… know what I mean?

 

If people don't like what the schools present, they have options.. they can homeschool, they can enrol their child in a private school, heck several provinces even have a Christian faith based public option! (Alberta, Ontario, and I think Saskatchewan?)

 

I see a difference between an academic class, like math, and sex ed. I don't believe a parent should be able to opt a student out of math, science, reading, or history because I believe academics are the school's job. If you sign your kid up for school you are giving them responsibility on what academics will be taught and how.

 

Also, those classes tend to be year round and year after year. Sex ed tends to be a couple of weeks at most during health and isn't, IME, taught yearly.

 

Have you ever seen the lengthy arguments that can happen on homeschooling boards with regard to history & science ~ X parents want history taught from X point of view, Y parents want science without THIS, and so on….? There are a lot of folks who would say that history and science are subjects in which 'belief' (or whatever word you want to use…world view? etc) is just as important and want to remove their kids from that class.

 

You've actually hit on a part of the "sex ed" stuff that I do think needs to revamped - I don't think that making it into a special unit all of its own and just addressing it during grades blah & blah (varies) is the way to go…. I think they'd be better off just having it as a normal, ordinary component addressed throughout a comprehensive & ongoing "human health" program -- at developmentally appropriate levels, of course. Do you know what I mean? The way that many places are still doing it is more of the super-secret ooooooo we get to learn about sex next week!11! method…. :p

 

I don't know if I'm explaining myself well there. Not my strongest area, getting stuff out of my head and across to others.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do see lots of sides to this…and truthfully, it wasn't all that long ago that I'd have been standing on the other side of this rope…

[LidiyaDawn]

 

But I've never really understood why a student ought not be able to take a cafeteria approach to education.

 

That's pretty much exactly what our family does ~ at home. ;)

 

[i don't think it's feasible in a large scale public system… might work in a small private school environment though… ]

[MrsBasil]

Have you ever seen the lengthy arguments that can happen on homeschooling boards with regard to history & science ~ X parents want history taught from X point of view, Y parents want science without THIS, and so on….? There are a lot of folks who would say that history and science are subjects in which 'belief' (or whatever word you want to use…world view? etc) is just as important and want to remove their kids from that class.

 

You've actually hit on a part of the "sex ed" stuff that I do think needs to revamped - I don't think that making it into a special unit all of its own and just addressing it during grades blah & blah (varies) is the way to go…. I think they'd be better off just having it as a normal, ordinary component addressed throughout a comprehensive & ongoing "human health" program -- at developmentally appropriate levels, of course. Do you know what I mean? The way that many places are still doing it is more of the super-secret ooooooo we get to learn about sex next week!11! method…. :p

 

I don't know if I'm explaining myself well there. Not my strongest area, getting stuff out of my head and across to others.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do see lots of sides to this…and truthfully, it wasn't all that long ago that I'd have been standing on the other side of this rope…

 

 

I see a lot of sides too and I totally get your point.

 

I think, for me, I see science, history etc are subjects which I haven't seen get that heated outside of the internet. Most people accept that those things will be taught in school as part of a typical course of study.

 

I have seen people, IRL, worry or feel like they have an issue because sex ed is teaching something that is not compatible with their religious beliefs, is abstinence only and they aren't on board with that, or that their child lacks the maturity to fully "get" what is being taught.

 

I know it's not the strongest position to hold though. As I was typing I was tearing holes in it. :)

 

I'm American and it's hard enough, in some areas, to provide a decent sex ed program. If parents can opt out, it may give them peace of mind to not oppose a comprehensive program-which I believe is needed!

 

I don't know. I think there is no simple answer, I see where my arguments are weak and some of it is just belief that when it comes to this issue parents should have the final say.

 

Thanks for bearing with me, written communication is not my strongest suit.

[spaceman]

I agree that sex ed should not be mandatory. Parents should have the option to have their children opt-out. (And I am someone who would not opt-out, should my children attend public school. I just respect the rights of those who feel differently).

 

It's not the same as Math, because frankly there are some subjects that are more controversial than others. It's okay to allow some opt-outs and not others. A line can be drawn.

 

I think numbers need to be seen, though, before an action like mandatory sex ed can be taken seriously. Exactly what are the percentages of 1). the children that opt-out? and 2). how is this subset affecting the growing STI rates? Is this subset of opt-out'ers contributing to the growth, if so how much?

 

I think before a parental and personal liberty like this is up for being restricted, we should consider what the actual "gains" are.

 

Perhaps a more level-headed response would be to have opt-out parents check a box stating that they will home-educate about sex in a time and manner that is consistent with their beliefs.

[Gooblink]

Nice job, Impish. :) I agree with you.

[In2why]

Was that to my questions? Because they most certainly have every right to do so if they object to the curriculum. :)

 

I'm talking about the ability to yank kids from this class and that class….while still using the system.

 

I don't know ~ I see a lot of good reasons for comprehensive human health education, including the aspects that deal with what gets lumped under "sex ed"…. and I also support families' rights to home educate if they don't like what the public/private/etc schools provide. (of course.. I'm a homeschooler! :D )

 

 

I agree. A few years back (I feel so old because it was more than a few years lol) after Clinton and oral sex became a part of our national conversation our town had an epidemic of Gonorrhea of the throat. Kids thought that oral sex was safe sex, so they didn't need to use condoms or or treat it as more than "fooling" around. Very few people even want to think about their children having sexual relations at any age, much less as youngsters, so I think there are many kids that *need some type of sex education. I wish more parents were open about talking to their kids, but it is my experience that they either don't, or they are way off about the age when kids are sexually experimenting.

 

 

I do have a question though. As a parent of older and younger kids, I am curious about what happens if your child wants to be sexually active and it is against your value system? Are they comfortable coming to you, even though they know that everything they have been taught, teaches them not be sexually active? Would they ask you what type of sexual behavior is acceptable and what isn't? How would you handle that? Would you punish or limit your child's interaction with a person if you thought they might become sexually active? Do you expect your kids to begin the conversation about sex or do you approach them?

I know I have lots of questions, but I did have a son who became sexually active before I wanted, expected, or thought was healthy, but once the door is opened it is hard to shut, so I approached it by education about responsibility and respect for himself and his partner, but it was very uncomfortable.

[In2why]

My objection isn't to sex ed in school.

 

Its making it mandatory.

 

 

I have a hard time with this as well.

 

Yet at the same time, I wonder if sometimes the kids that have parents that opt out might not be the ones that need it the most, because they are sexually active yet their parents are approaching it as if their value system is protection enough.

 

Again I go back to the STD's that are spread orally. My brother dated a wonderful young woman, who was very active in her church and was without a doubt not going to lose her virginity until marriage. But she did everything else. And at the risk of being too graphic, it wasn't that long ago that I read an article where anal, was being considered the alternative to not losing virginity, and that is very dangerous regarding STD's.