I Wrote A Letter...Sex Ed A Must

[sewpeaceful]

Amen!

 

It absolutely IS a religious issue at OUR house! Thanks!

[Impish]

I can't say whats right for all families, which is my objection...I don't believe that the government can in this case either.

 

For us, sex ed is an ongoing conversation, with all my children.

 

While we make our stance on premaritial sex known, we also have discussed birth control. Part of our stance against premaritial sex is that having unprotected sex just once, can be a death sentance. Diva also knows the struggles I went through as a single parent.

[laundrycrisis]

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.

 

 

I knew girls in high school who were caught in this. Pregnant girls, previously very active in the churches their parents chose to attend.

 

Personally I am in favor of mandatory basic sex ed in public schools. I believe that every single kid enrolled in a public school has a right to be provided information regarding 1. what goes where, 2. what can happen, and 3. methods of prevention should they choose to take the risk, regardless of their parents' beliefs. I do not believe parents of public school children should have to right to prevent the child from getting this information. If they want to break the news themselves, they can do it before the child reaches the age at which the school addresses it.

 

However I do not think it is a school's place to say what is okay or not okay or encourage or discourage any type of sexual behavior. That should be completely up to the parents. The school should only be giving out information about how stuff happens. IMO there should be a lot of emphasis on the scientific facts (including hormones and emotions) and all the possible consequences, but no moralizing.

[Crissy]

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.

 

 

 

I don't believe for a second that sex ed classes are the source of those 'ideas'.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

My grandparents/legal guardians did not give me information. Just a book when I was 13 that I was too embarrassed to open, let alone read. They left it to the schools, but I didn't retain anything from those classes beside the month-by-month descriptions of a baby's development inside the womb (WAAAAY to embarrassed to be hearing things with my classmates all around me.) I had to guess about how things worked, and my husband still teases me about the explanations I came up with :001_rolleyes: My in-laws gave my virgin fiance and I some books (we believed in saving it for marriage) and somehow we still didn't get it right.

 

I guess my point is that depending on the school to teach kids is reckless, not knowing what the kids got out of it that actually meant anything to them. And having them "pass" a test doesn't tell you if they did or not.

[laundrycrisis]

I guess my point is that depending on the school to teach kids is reckless, not knowing what the kids got out of it that actually meant anything to them. And having them "pass" a test doesn't tell you if they did or not.

 

ITA it is reckless to trust it all to the schools. It's even more reckless for a parent to refuse to allow the school to attempt it, and perhaps not address it at home either.

 

The kids deserve access to the essential information about these parts of their bodies, whether or not their parents agree with them having the information.

[Impish]

I completely agree that keeping a child ignorant about the functioning of their own bodies is wrong. Absolutely.

 

But I firmly believe that forcing children to attend sex ed against their parent's wishes is way too much government meddling.

[Word Nerd]

Her response:

 

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.

 

She can't possibly know this yet states it as if it is a proven fact.

[Jennifer3141]

I completely agree that keeping a child ignorant about the functioning of their own bodies is wrong. Absolutely.

 

But I firmly believe that forcing children to attend sex ed against their parent's wishes is way too much government meddling.

 

We agree on number one. :)

 

Here's my issue with number two: It's actually fine with me if you want to take your child out of mandatory sex ed. However, if your child ends up pregnant or needs an expensive drug for AIDS, don't take that money out of my taxes. I don't want to pay becuase you kept your child ignorant.

 

We get so mad at the government for "meddling." However, if we screw up, we sure like the help the government provides. If parents want to opt out, great. Then sign a waiver that you'll cover the expense of any baby that may occur or any medical needs that may arise too.

[Haiku]

They don't have all those ideas put in their heads.

 

 

 

Kids don't need "all those ideas put in their heads." Humans are biological creatures with hormones and sex drives. These things come naturally, and if no one gives them the information, they will seek it out on their own, usually from their friends, who are generally not the most reliable imparters of accurate information.

 

I see sex ed as a health issue and therefore entirely appropriate in schools as part of health class.

 

When I see people say things like they don't let their older children change the baby's diaper if they are of the opposite sex or that they tell their daughters about sex on their wedding day, it frightens me. Kids who are ignorant make ignorant, life-changing mistakes.

 

The article said parents can opt out of this instruction. My impression was that the "mandatory" aspect is that schools must offer the instruction, not that students are forced against their parents' wills to attend it.

 

Tara

[Crissy]

Here's my issue with number two: It's actually fine with me if you want to take your child out of mandatory sex ed. However, if your child ends up pregnant or needs an expensive drug for AIDS, don't take that money out of my taxes. I don't want to pay becuase you kept your child ignorant.

 

 

 

We have always had open and honest conversations about sexuality in our home, so there wouldn't be anything in a sex ed class that would be news to my boys, but I wonder if it's accurate to assume that not wanting the schools to teach them means kids will remain ignorant on the subject.

[Crissy]

Kids don't need "all those ideas put in their heads." Humans are biological creatures with hormones and sex drives. These things come naturally, and if no one gives them the information, they will seek it out on their own, usually from their friends, who are generally not the most reliable imparters of accurate information.

 

 

 

Tara

 

:iagree:

[AnthemLights]

I completely agree that keeping a child ignorant about the functioning of their own bodies is wrong. Absolutely.

 

But I firmly believe that forcing children to attend sex ed against their parent's wishes is way too much government meddling.

 

:iagree: :iagree:

[Haiku]

But I firmly believe that forcing children to attend sex ed against their parent's wishes is way too much government meddling.

 

Can we clarify whether this is actually the case? As I said, the way I read the article was that the schools were mandated to provide the education, not that the children were mandated to receive it.

 

Tara

[MSNative]

We agree on number one. :)

 

Here's my issue with number two: It's actually fine with me if you want to take your child out of mandatory sex ed. However, if your child ends up pregnant or needs an expensive drug for AIDS, don't take that money out of my taxes. I don't want to pay becuase you kept your child ignorant.

 

We get so mad at the government for "meddling." However, if we screw up, we sure like the help the government provides. If parents want to opt out, great. Then sign a waiver that you'll cover the expense of any baby that may occur or any medical needs that may arise too.

 

So do the sex ed teachers or the parents have to pay for the kids who went through the class and got pregnant or STDs? Attending a class doesn't mean kids won't have unprotected sex.

 

I think the main problem is that sex ed has become so very much more. Many parents don't have a problem with the basic biological facts being taught. However, sex ed in many schools has gone far beyond that.

[Impish]

Kids don't need "all those ideas put in their heads." Humans are biological creatures with hormones and sex drives. These things come naturally, and if no one gives them the information, they will seek it out on their own, usually from their friends, who are generally not the most reliable imparters of accurate information.

 

I see sex ed as a health issue and therefore entirely appropriate in schools as part of health class.

 

When I see people say things like they don't let their older children change the baby's diaper if they are of the opposite sex or that they tell their daughters about sex on their wedding day, it frightens me. Kids who are ignorant make ignorant, life-changing mistakes.

 

The article said parents can opt out of this instruction. My impression was that the "mandatory" aspect is that schools must offer the instruction, not that students are forced against their parents' wills to attend it.

 

Tara

 

Can we clarify whether this is actually the case? As I said, the way I read the article was that the schools were mandated to provide the education, not that the children were mandated to receive it.

 

Tara

As it stands *now*, parents can opt out. The writer wants to do away with that option, and make it mandatory attendance for all students.

[Plucky]

We have always had open and honest conversations about sexuality in our home, so there wouldn't be anything in a sex ed class that would be news to my boys, but I wonder if it's accurate to assume that not wanting the schools to teach them means kids will remain ignorant on the subject.

 

We are open about sex in our home, too. I remember a teacher friend of mine telling me that her 3rd grade students were being taught about safe anal and oral sex in sex education at her elementary school. While some 3rd graders might need that kind of information for survival, most do not need to know so much at that age. I think some sex educators take it too far.

[sheryl]

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,

 

 

:hurray: Yea Imp! Great!

[In The Great White North]

I remember a teacher friend of mine telling me that her 3rd grade students were being taught about safe anal and oral sex in sex education at her elementary school.

 

Kids don't need "all those ideas put in their heads." Humans are biological creatures with hormones and sex drives. These things come naturally, and if no one gives them the information, they will seek it out on their own, usually from their friends, who are generally not the most reliable imparters of accurate information.

 

That idea would definitely not have "come naturally" in 3rd grade.

 

Personally I am in favor of mandatory basic sex ed in public schools. I believe that every single kid enrolled in a public school has a right to be provided information regarding 1. what goes where, 2. what can happen, and 3. methods of prevention should they choose to take the risk, regardless of their parents' beliefs.

 

Here's where the problem lies. The parents teach their children contraception and abortion are wrong. The school teaches them how to do both. By teaching the children how to do it, the schools are teaching them that it is OK to do it. That is in direct conflict with the parents' (and the children's) constitutional right to practice their religion.

 

The parents teach their children robbing a bank is wrong. Would it be OK for the schools to teach them how to rob banks?

[laundrycrisis]

Here's where the problem lies. The parents teach their children contraception and abortion are wrong. The school teaches them how to do both. By teaching the children how to do it, the schools are teaching them that it is OK to do it. That is in direct conflict with the parents' (and the children's) constitutional right to practice their religion.

 

 

I completely disagree. The school teaches them that it is available, not that it is okay. That is a fact. It is available. To teach a child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts.

[In The Great White North]

The school teaches them that it is available, not that it is okay. That is a fact. It is available. To teach a child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts.

 

Guns are available. That is a fact. They are available. To teach the child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts. When are the schools going to start teaching the kids how to use guns, handing them out at the nurses office, showing them even more dangerous than normal uses for the guns, and teaching them that anyway they feel/act about guns is OK?

 

Drugs are available. That is a fact. They are available. To teach the child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts. When are the schools going to start teaching the kids how to do drugs, handing them out at the nurses office, showing them even more dangerous than normal uses for the drugs, and teaching them that anyway they feel/act about drugs is OK?

 

Alcohol is available. That is a fact. They are available. To teach the child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts. When are the schools going to start teaching the kids how to drink beer, handing out wine at the nurses office, introduce them to even harder liquor, and teaching them that anyway they feel/act about alcohol is OK?

 

Smoking is a fact. That is a fact. Cigarettes are available. To teach the child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts. When are the schools going to start teaching the kids how to smoke, handing out cigarettes at the nurses office, introduce them to stogies, and teaching them that anyway they feel/act about smoking is OK?

 

It appears that even the government realizes that teaching the children how is a tacit approval, or guns, drugs, alcohol and smoking wouldn't be so strenuously prohibited in and around schools. To say the opposite for sex is totally illogical.

[laundrycrisis]

Guns are available. That is a fact. They are available. To teach the child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts. When are the schools going to start teaching the kids how to use guns, handing them out at the nurses office, showing them even more dangerous than normal uses for the guns, and teaching them that anyway they feel/act about guns is OK?

 

Drugs are available. That is a fact. They are available. To teach the child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts. When are the schools going to start teaching the kids how to do drugs, handing them out at the nurses office, showing them even more dangerous than normal uses for the drugs, and teaching them that anyway they feel/act about drugs is OK?

 

Alcohol is available. That is a fact. They are available. To teach the child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts. When are the schools going to start teaching the kids how to drink beer, handing out wine at the nurses office, introduce them to even harder liquor, and teaching them that anyway they feel/act about alcohol is OK?

 

Smoking is a fact. That is a fact. Cigarettes are available. To teach the child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts. When are the schools going to start teaching the kids how to smoke, handing out cigarettes at the nurses office, introduce them to stogies, and teaching them that anyway they feel/act about smoking is OK?

 

It appears that even the government realizes that teaching the children how is a tacit approval, or guns, drugs, alcohol and smoking wouldn't be so strenuously prohibited in and around schools. To say the opposite for sex is totally illogical.

 

All of these other examples are illegal for underage people. Schools should be teaching that they exist and happen, and the tragic consequences that can come from them. But comparing showing how a condom goes on to teaching how to use drugs, tobacco, and firearms and other illegal activities is ridiculous. If parents think it is morally wrong to put on a condom, it's their duty to teach their child that. But it's not a crime...and yes I do think all kids entering their teen years should know how they work - regardless of how their parents feel about it. Parents are generally not consulted by their teens before the kid has s3x. S3xually active kids come from all types of families and religious backgrounds. Parents who think their moral teachings are enough to protect their child are often mistaken, and the lack of basic, fundamental information ends up having consequences for the child.

Edited May 26, 2011 by laundrycrisis

[Impish]

All of these other examples are illegal for underage people. Schools should be teaching that they exist and happen. But comparing showing how a condom goes on to teaching how to use drugs, tobacco, and firearms and other illegal activities is ridiculous. If parents think it is morally wrong to put on a condom, it's their duty to teach their child that. But it's not a crime...and yes I do think all kids entering their teen years should know how they work - regardless of how their parents feel about it. Parents are generally not consulted by their teens before the kid has s3x. S3xually active kids come from all types of families and religious backgrounds. Parents who think their moral teachings are enough to protect their child are often mistaken, and the lack of basic, fundamental information ends up causing consequences for the child.

Uh...sex IS illegal under 16. Statutory rape. Sex ed is happening waaaaay before age 16.

[mom2scouts]

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…)

 

They homeschool, of course!

 

Way to go, Imp.:hurray: I'm tired of "the government" thinking they can raise my children better than I can.

[laundrycrisis]

Uh...sex IS illegal under 16. Statutory rape. Sex ed is happening waaaaay before age 16.

 

So if two 15 yo's DTD with each other, they can prosecute each other for statutory rape.. I'm sure that goes a long way toward prevention :glare:

 

Keeping kids completely ignorant of how their bodies work and how to prevent disease transmission and unintended pregnancy doesn't work either. Personally I think it's a good idea for the schools to do an end run around the parents who think this way. Because I've known the girls who got pregnant or in other situations as a result of this type of thinking. Their parents' total shock didn't fix anything.

Edited May 26, 2011 by laundrycrisis

[lionfamily1999]

Uh...sex IS illegal under 16. Statutory rape. Sex ed is happening waaaaay before age 16.

:iagree:

[Impish]

So if two 15 yo's DTD with each other, they can prosecute each other for statutory rape.. I'm sure that goes a long way toward prevention :glare:

I was simply pointing out the fallacy of the 'its not illegal' argument.

[lionfamily1999]

All of these other examples are illegal for underage people. Schools should be teaching that they exist and happen, and the tragic consequences that can come from them. But comparing showing how a condom goes on to teaching how to use drugs, tobacco, and firearms and other illegal activities is ridiculous. If parents think it is morally wrong to put on a condom, it's their duty to teach their child that. But it's not a crime...and yes I do think all kids entering their teen years should know how they work - regardless of how their parents feel about it. Parents are generally not consulted by their teens before the kid has s3x. S3xually active kids come from all types of families and religious backgrounds. Parents who think their moral teachings are enough to protect their child are often mistaken, and the lack of basic, fundamental information ends up having consequences for the child.

 

So if two 15 yo's DTD with each other, they can prosecute each other for statutory rape.. I'm sure that goes a long way toward prevention :glare:

Your point was that those other things are illegal. So is underage sex. Pointing out that it doesn't do anything for prevention means bupkiss. Drugs being illegal doesn't do too much for stopping kids from experimenting. So, how about classes on how to identify clean weed, so they don't accidently get high on pcp? I mean, sure it's illegal, but slapping the wrist of a teen caught with weed doesn't go a long way toward prevention either.

[lionfamily1999]

Underage drinking being illegal doesn't stop kids from drinking. Should they have classes on how to be "safe" while drunk?

 

All the laws that make those things illegal for minors are more geared towards punishing the ADULTS that expose them to it. The dealer who is over 18 gets charged heavier than the minor. The adult that sells the alcohol, the adult that serves the alcohol, gets a stiffer penalty than the minor that consumes it. The adult that has sex with a minor gets in trouble and the minor doesn't (really in the rest of the scenerios the minor rarely gets into trouble unless they're "repeat offenders"). But authority figures get to explain it to kids and hand out the tools to do it safely when it comes to sex, which can have just as life long/life ending ramifications????

[laundrycrisis]

I was simply pointing out the fallacy of the 'its not illegal' argument.

 

I do not believe that S3x between two underage kids is illegal in all states.

[laundrycrisis]

But authority figures get to explain it to kids and hand out the tools to do it safely when it comes to sex, which can have just as life long/life ending ramifications????

 

Withholding information will not prevent kids from having s3x. The ones who will do it will do it anyway. They will just be less prepared to protect themselves.

 

Everything I am saying here is based on what I have seen with my own eyes...kids from very religious families, with double lives their parents knew nothing about, ignorant of mechanics and consequences because they were from a very conservative community that did not provide this information. Many kids are going to try things their parents will not know about and would never approve of. It will happen anyway. It is so vital for the kids to have the information.

Edited May 26, 2011 by laundrycrisis

[In The Great White North]

They will just be less prepared to protect themselves.

 

 

This is based on your opinion that they are, in fact, protecting themselves when they use condoms or the pill.

 

This is not a fact. And totally disregards the sector of the population that regards either contraception or abortion as an evil act on par with murder.

 

This is why parents need the option to opt out.

[TXMomof4]

We agree on number one. :)

 

Here's my issue with number two: It's actually fine with me if you want to take your child out of mandatory sex ed. However, if your child ends up pregnant or needs an expensive drug for AIDS, don't take that money out of my taxes. I don't want to pay becuase you kept your child ignorant.

 

We get so mad at the government for "meddling." However, if we screw up, we sure like the help the government provides. If parents want to opt out, great. Then sign a waiver that you'll cover the expense of any baby that may occur or any medical needs that may arise too.

 

Every girl who ends up pregnant and every person who ends up with an STD was obviously lacking sex ed at home? I don't think I'm following that logic.

[texasmama]

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

 

Bolded is mine: My teen (almost 16) talks to me about sex. She doesn't even date and is nowhere close to having a sexual relationship, but she freely asks me questions, which I encourage. At times, she asks such specific questions that I have to generalize the answers so as not to provide too much detail about my own personal life. No "extreme discomfort" here.

[Haiku]

As it stands *now*, parents can opt out. The writer wants to do away with that option, and make it mandatory attendance for all students.

 

Well, then I agree with you. I think schools should provide sex ed, and I think parents should have access to the curriculum and be able to opt out if they so desire. I have heard a lot of wild stories about weirdly inappropriate things being taught in sex ed classes, but I don't have any firsthand knowledge of that, and I think that health class is an appropriate forum for sexual health information. I think that parents can teach their kids whatever they think about sex, and I don't think that sex ed classes would seriously undermine a parent's teaching. I think kids who go to school are at a pretty high "risk" of hearing about sex anyway just from being around other kids, so I'm not sure that opting out of a sex ed class would really protect children from that. But I agree with the opting out option. Indeed, I'd probably be a hypocrite if I didn't since I have opted out of the schools in general due to my disagreement with what and how they teach (among other things) ... although in the interest of full disclosure I do have one child in school.

 

Dd16 and I talk about sex. It's uncomfortable for her, but she trusts me enough to come to me for information. I had the sex talk with ds8 recently when he asked me, "How do people have sex?" After I explained it to him, his comment was, "How can that feel good? That doesn't sound good at all!!" Dd9 has never asked. I figure she will when she's ready, but she's seen enough nature documentaries to know about mammals mating. :D

 

Tara

[JVA]

Imp- You're great. You should get a job as a columnist or radio talk show host......you're a natural with putting words together to prove your point. :001_smile:

[lionfamily1999]

Withholding information will not prevent kids from having s3x. The ones who will do it will do it anyway. They will just be less prepared to protect themselves.

 

Everything I am saying here is based on what I have seen with my own eyes...kids from very religious families, with double lives their parents knew nothing about, ignorant of mechanics and consequences because they were from a very conservative community that did not provide this information. Many kids are going to try things their parents will not know about and would never approve of. It will happen anyway. It is so vital for the kids to have the information.

Neither will it keep kids from trying drugs, alcohol, or using guns. The same logic could be used for all of those. As it stands, the only education they get on those in school is how bad they are, how dangerous, &tc. Why the exception for sex?

 

So, you want to protect children from their religious families. That's what it comes down to, a disagreement on what is right religiously?

 

I really think the idea that parents will not discuss sex is outdated. Everyone I knew as a kid had parents that would, at the very least, begrudgingly discuss sex. Now, sure they were ignorant, but they (the parents of my generation) didn't have AIDS to deal with when they were young. The kids of my generation grew up knowing how dangerous promiscuity could be. Not just the idea of getting pregnant, which seemed like small potatoes at the time, the idea of catching an illness that would kill you. I talk to my kids and I'm better informed than my parents were. The parents I'm friends with are better informed than their parents were and they talk to their kids.

 

This isn't the 50s anymore and June Cleaver's all done being a mother. Even Roseanne, who for all her faults did talk to her kids, is an outdated example of motherhood. Mothers are different now. Parents are different now. We can keep assuming that behind every child lurks a 1950s throw-back or a religious nut from a movie, but that's not the truth.

[KristinaBreece]

Guns are available. That is a fact. They are available. To teach the child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts. When are the schools going to start teaching the kids how to use guns, handing them out at the nurses office, showing them even more dangerous than normal uses for the guns, and teaching them that anyway they feel/act about guns is OK?

 

Drugs are available. That is a fact. They are available. To teach the child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts. When are the schools going to start teaching the kids how to do drugs, handing them out at the nurses office, showing them even more dangerous than normal uses for the drugs, and teaching them that anyway they feel/act about drugs is OK?

 

Alcohol is available. That is a fact. They are available. To teach the child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts. When are the schools going to start teaching the kids how to drink beer, handing out wine at the nurses office, introduce them to even harder liquor, and teaching them that anyway they feel/act about alcohol is OK?

 

Smoking is a fact. That is a fact. Cigarettes are available. To teach the child otherwise is lying to them. The kids have a right to know the facts. When are the schools going to start teaching the kids how to smoke, handing out cigarettes at the nurses office, introduce them to stogies, and teaching them that anyway they feel/act about smoking is OK?

 

It appears that even the government realizes that teaching the children how is a tacit approval, or guns, drugs, alcohol and smoking wouldn't be so strenuously prohibited in and around schools. To say the opposite for sex is totally illogical.

 

Smoking, guns, alcohol, and drugs are outside factors entirely. Sex is a biological fact. Apples and oranges, really.

 

Uh...sex IS illegal under 16. Statutory rape. Sex ed is happening waaaaay before age 16.

 

Sex between 2 underage kids is not illegal. (At least in my state. The laws are different from state to state, but I'm pretty sure that sex between two 14 or 15 year olds isn't going to trial anytime soon anywhere.) It's only statutory rape if one of the parties is above the age of consent while the other is not.

 

And sex is happening way before age 16. I want my kids to know how a car operates before they're in a position to be behind the wheel-- I start teaching them the potential dangers of operating a motor vehicle before they're of the age to start taking classes & getting a permit to start driving.

 

I think it is better to introduce topics like safe sex practices before the kid is likely to be in that situation. The sad reality is that a lot of teens are exposed to this through their peers early in high school.

 

(Just to be clear, I am completely in agreement with you that parents should be able to opt out, but I believe that the "default" should be sex ed for all unless the parent specifically chooses to keep them out of it.)

Edited May 26, 2011 by KristinaBreece

[In2why]

Underage drinking being illegal doesn't stop kids from drinking. Should they have classes on how to be "safe" while drunk?

 

All the laws that make those things illegal for minors are more geared towards punishing the ADULTS that expose them to it. The dealer who is over 18 gets charged heavier than the minor. The adult that sells the alcohol, the adult that serves the alcohol, gets a stiffer penalty than the minor that consumes it. The adult that has sex with a minor gets in trouble and the minor doesn't (really in the rest of the scenerios the minor rarely gets into trouble unless they're "repeat offenders"). But authority figures get to explain it to kids and hand out the tools to do it safely when it comes to sex, which can have just as life long/life ending ramifications????

 

 

YES, YES, YES to the bolded part! And YES again. Knowing that throwing up is your body's way of removing a toxin from your body is important, and not just a signal to drink more. Knowing that if a friend passes out that it is possible that they won't be able to throw up and remove the toxin therfore resulting in alcohol poisoning and possibly death is very important. Knowing that it is more important to get adult/medical help then to keep the drinking hidden is cruicial.

Both Alcohol/drug education and sex education are crucial to health studies, and I hope with every ounce of my being that parents are doing the teaching because I actually believe that parents are more influential then peers or teachers, but you can't have a useful health class without including the info. And while I am on my soapbox, I think just say no is a joke, and simply telling kids that they are bad is a dangerous joke.

[Crissy]

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.

 

My teenage son and I were discussing this thread as I was driving him to school this morning. He reminded me that for the sex ed portion of his sophomore health class we had to opt-in. Every parent had to read the syllabus and sign it or the student would be excused to the library for those few weeks of the class.

I recall that it was a fairly detailed syllabus and my son says every one of the 31 kids in his class opted-in.

[twoforjoy]

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.

 

Most parents support sex education in school. So "the few" are the parents who do not want their child receiving sex education in school.

 

I do think why the few parents who don't want their children receiving sex ed should get to dictate the curriculum for everybody is a valid question, though. ;)

[Impish]

Most parents support sex education in school. So "the few" are the parents who do not want their child receiving sex education in school.

 

I do think why the few parents who don't want their children receiving sex ed should get to dictate the curriculum for everybody is a valid question, though. ;)

I wasn't arguing they should. I'm arguing against mandatory sex ed. Not saying it shouldn't be in school, saying that parents should retain the right not to have their child forcibly attend.

[5LittleMonkeys]

 

Here's my issue with number two: It's actually fine with me if you want to take your child out of mandatory sex ed. However, if your child ends up pregnant or needs an expensive drug for AIDS, don't take that money out of my taxes. I don't want to pay becuase you kept your child ignorant.

 

We get so mad at the government for "meddling." However, if we screw up, we sure like the help the government provides. If parents want to opt out, great. Then sign a waiver that you'll cover the expense of any baby that may occur or any medical needs that may arise too.

 

So what if someone opts out of sex ed at ps, teaches said dc at home all about sex, safe sex...the whole 9 yards and said dc still goes out and gets AIDS or gets pregnant? What about the dc that does take the sex ed class in ps and still goes out and gets AIDS or gets pregnant? Who should foot the bill then? And are you assuming that anyone who's dc would go out and get AIDS or get pregnant would automatically need government aid anyway? Even wealthy people with great private insurance sometimes have dc who make those mistakes and they don't ask for a dime of your tax money to take care of it.

 

 

 

Being educated about sex whether at home or at ps doesn't guarantee that the dc isn't going to have sex. In fact sex ed without a religious or moral framework is likely to make a dc feel completely comfortable about going out and experimenting. I firmly believe in sex ed in schools but NOT in mandatory attendance. I would hope that most parents that opt out are the ones who want to teach their dc about it with that moral and religious framework in place. Sure there are going to be those few who opt out and don't take the responsibility to teach that at home but you can't make a blanket policy that infringes on the rights of the many just to catch the few.

[Jennifer3141]

So do the sex ed teachers or the parents have to pay for the kids who went through the class and got pregnant or STDs? Attending a class doesn't mean kids won't have unprotected sex.

 

I think the main problem is that sex ed has become so very much more. Many parents don't have a problem with the basic biological facts being taught. However, sex ed in many schools has gone far beyond that.

 

You're right, MSNative. What do we do about the kids who take the class and don't learn anyway? I don't know. That all goes abck to institutional learning, which I don't personally believe works most of the time anyway.

 

It's been over 20 years since I took a sex ed class so I don't know what/if schools have "gone beyond" what I learned.

 

I remember being bored to death in the stupid class because almost ALL of our "anonymous" questions were, "Can you get pregnant from swallowing sperm?" I remember being mortified back then that anyone could be that stupid. But I had parents who explained the facts to me and provided me with a few books (and bless you Judy Blume because I put a lot of pieces togther from her). I'd also seen animals do it, granted we are different from horses but the mechanics are the same.

 

And I did have a couple of pregnant classmates in junior high. Both came from very strict, religious households where sex was not discussed. One was Mormon (did anyone ever answer if Mormon or LDS was a better term??) and the other was JW. It was a VERY BIG DEAL for both of those girls.

 

And then in HS, it seemed like a lot of our Hispanic population was pregnant. And culturally, they seemed pretty happy about it. They had a pregnant table in the gym and they rubbed each others' bellies. That didn't happen with the two religious girls.

 

I was a tomboy reader in school so I missed a lot of the sex stuff until I was 17ish. I remember thinking, "No way is one of those touching me!" when I was 16 or so. And most of my friends felt the same way although as we got older, fewer and fewer of them felt that way.

 

I go around and around and around on this in my head. It's hard to think the government is going to fix teen pregnancy/STDs in school when I have little faith they can handle teaching Roman history from 2000 years ago. :D

 

But it has been my personal experience that parents who object on "moral grounds" to sex ed classes but if their kid gets pregnant, they are first in line for state health care and benefits for that baby because they don't want to pay for it. Well, I don't either. If you don't want to honestly tell your kids what those parts do and why it feels so good, etc. etc., then you pay for the consequences.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Jennifer3141

[Jennifer3141]

 

 

Being educated about sex whether at home or at ps doesn't guarantee that the dc isn't going to have sex. In fact sex ed without a religious or moral framework is likely to make a dc feel completely comfortable about going out and experimenting. .

 

Aime, I see what you are saying but the converse of your argument is also true. NOT teaching the kids anything about sex doesn't guarantee that the DC isn't going to have sex either.

 

And I grew up in an agnostic household for most of my life. My parents didn't put any moral strictures on sex other than, "You're a kid. Be a kid. You've got years to be a grown up!" and I was one of the last (maybe even the very last, I don't actually remember) of my friends to actually do it.

 

It seems like what mandatory sex ed is trying to do is catch the kids who really, truly don't know anything. And again, it's not going to work for those kids anyway because their parents can still remove them from the class.

 

I also doubt a single class would make up for years of silence on the issue. It's not like you can bundle the whole of human sexuality into a one time thing. And because it's an issue with moral complexities of different depths taught to a probably very diverse group of teenagers, how could it? Do you focus on mechanics? Disease? Pregnancy? Isn't focusing in on disease kind of stupid when there are kids who might not understand the basic mechanics?

[Sebastian (a lady)]

We agree on number one. :)

 

Here's my issue with number two: It's actually fine with me if you want to take your child out of mandatory sex ed. However, if your child ends up pregnant or needs an expensive drug for AIDS, don't take that money out of my taxes. I don't want to pay becuase you kept your child ignorant.

 

We get so mad at the government for "meddling." However, if we screw up, we sure like the help the government provides. If parents want to opt out, great. Then sign a waiver that you'll cover the expense of any baby that may occur or any medical needs that may arise too.

 

Does this go both ways? Do the course instructor or the school officials or the course developer take on a financial responsibility for the choices of students who do take the class?

 

Do I get a rebate on taxes spent to support people who make choices I think are foolish?

[5LittleMonkeys]

NOT teaching the kids anything about sex doesn't guarantee that the DC isn't going to have sex either.

 

 

 

It seems like what mandatory sex ed is trying to do is catch the kids who really, truly don't know anything.

 

 

I agree with you on the first point and I understand your second point, but I hold to my statement that it isn't right to infringe on the rights of those who want to and are taking responsibility and educating their dc at home just to catch the few dc who aren't getting that education at home (who may or may not go out and experiment anyway).

 

 

 

I would be curious though to see statistics regarding how many students who opt out vs. how many students who go through sex ed in ps end up having sex, getting pregnant or getting an STD. Does anyone have any such statistics?

[5LittleMonkeys]

Does this go both ways? Do the course instructor or the school officials or the course developer take on a financial responsibility for the choices of students who do take the class?

 

 

:iagree:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

But it has been my personal experience that parents who object on "moral grounds" to sex ed classes but if their kid gets pregnant, they are first in line for state health care and benefits for that baby because they don't want to pay for it. Well, I don't either. If you don't want to honestly tell your kids what those parts do and why it feels so good, etc. etc., then you pay for the consequences.

 

So are you suggesting that all families should take fiscal responsibility for the choices of their minor children or only those who think sexual intimacy is something for an adult married couple to delight in?

 

Is it socially acceptable to require children to take classes on how all the parts work, that it feels good and is normal/natural/uncontrolable, and then expect that if they become active and get pregnant or are infected that the community as a whole should pay for medical care, childcare within schools, WIC for unwed minor mothers . . .

 

I'm just missing how students to go to sex ed classes and then make unwise choices are more my responsiblity (as a tax payer) than a student who didn't attend the class at all. (Personally, I think that my children and my grandchildren are my responsibility.)

[fhjmom]

I am a former high school health teacher. Although it has been about a decade since I taught, I will chime in as to how our school handled it. We did teach abstinance-based sex-ed, but we still went over the anatomy & physiology, STD's, and pregnancy. The district hired an outside group to come in and do a presentation that covered a lot of the emotional issues, in addition to practical results, of sexual relationships and stressed waiting until you were an adult and ready for the life-long consequences it could bring. I don't remember them really saying "marriage" but instead stressing monogamous relationship (they could have said "marriage" too, I just don't remember that being stressed as much as the monogamous part).

 

Parents did have a one page permission form they had to sign and return in order for students to attend the presentation. They didn't have to sign anything for the classroom portion of the talks, but our district did allow parents to opt-out. I had one student whose parents' did so and she went to the library for independent study during that unit. I believe the district had the parents sign a statement that they understood what was covered in the unit and would cover the material at home, but that was all handled at the district office level and not by the teacher so I am not positive.

 

As a teacher (and this was before I was a parent). I applauded the parents who were interested enough to be involved in what their child was learning about such an important topic.

 

Now fast forward 10 years, I am the step-parent of a teen that chose to have unprotected sex while still in high school She did go through the PS health class and we did talk about sex rather frankly with her in our home. We expressed to her that our belief is that she should wait, not only because of religious views but also for health and responsibility reasons. We also tried to express to her that no matter what choices she made, we would always love her. She still got pregnant before finishing high school. It was not what we wished for her and I hate how her choices have impacted her future. Also, we wanted to keep her on our private insurance and tried to help her, but instead she chose to sever ties with us and use public assistance instead. As parents, we weren't perfect but we really did the best we could.

 

There are obviously lots of other issues in the dynamics here that I prefer not to share on a public message board, but the reasons behind teen pregnancy go far beyond anything that can be easily fixed by a public school curriculum. Forcing a parent to put their child in classes that are of such a sensitive nature is waaaay overstepping the boundaries for parental rights I am comfortable with. I do think all children should be taught about the way their bodies work and how to care for them, but in the end it is the responsibility of the parent to decide how and when their child is educated on such matters, IMHO.