PDA

View Full Version : Sex education in schools...?



4dmin
09-17-2008, 07:43 AM
Sex education in schools...?

Recently there have been ads attacking Obama for wanting to put sex education in schools. This is going on his voting record when he was in Illinois senate.

palin's children obviously need this, i know many of you have stated her daughter is an adult at 17 :rolleyes:; i'm 28 and barely feel like an adult no 17 yr old is an adult. i'm sure her 17 yr old lives on her own and pays her own bills.

1) why is this a bad thing?

2) is teaching abstinence failing our kids?

discuss.

mocha latte cupcake
09-17-2008, 08:02 AM
1) i was taught sex ed in school since the 3rd grade, 6th, 8th, and 10th grade... i don't see anything wrong with it and its not schools that are the failing issue here its parents. if parents don't take the initiative to be interested and an influence in their childs life in that area than its their problem. however it should be noted that friends have more influence over kids 12-18 than their parents.

2)if you look back in note 1 you'll see how i feel but i'll say it again. basically if you as a parent or your parents are NOT being pro active in this situation then you've basically failed, not the school b/c kids have enough issues with schools/authority figures so why are they actually going to listen to them

willum14pb
09-17-2008, 08:05 AM
not just schools, he wants to initiate this into kindergarten. At the point where they wouldn't understand anything being talked about. Ignorant, really. Sexually active children and having kids when you're young has nothing to do with sex education. It's about being a good parent and making sure your child is aware of consequences. And i will agree with PUREjdm, your peers have more influence on you than anyone. Especially at the ages where sexual activity starts to occur. IT's cool to have sex. everyone knows that.

DieselNuts
09-17-2008, 08:06 AM
I think sex ed. should be taught in school, but Obama wants it to be taught in Kindergarden....are you fuking kidding me?

Total_Blender
09-17-2008, 08:12 AM
Teaching abstinence is definitely failing our kids. One need only to look at the teen pregnancy rate in GA... 95 preggos per 1000 teens. Thats pushing one in ten.

Teen pregnancy makes both parents far less likely to get a highschool education (not to mention college), making us less economically competitive as a nation due to a work force that is becoming less skilled.

Food for thought - outcomes of teen pregnancies as of 9/2006:

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/fb_ATSRH/chart2.gif

Source:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html

4dmin
09-17-2008, 08:16 AM
not just schools, he wants to initiate this into kindergarten. At the point where they wouldn't understand anything being talked about. Ignorant, really. Sexually active children and having kids when you're young has nothing to do with sex education. It's about being a good parent and making sure your child is aware of consequences. And i will agree with PUREjdm, your peers have more influence on you than anyone. Especially at the ages where sexual activity starts to occur. IT's cool to have sex. everyone knows that.

state your source.


I think sex ed. should be taught in school, but Obama wants it to be taught in Kindergarden....are you fuking kidding me?

again state source.

Jaimecbr900
09-17-2008, 08:18 AM
not just schools, he wants to initiate this into kindergarten. At the point where they wouldn't understand anything being talked about. Ignorant, really. Sexually active children and having kids when you're young has nothing to do with sex education. It's about being a good parent and making sure your child is aware of consequences. And i will agree with PUREjdm, your peers have more influence on you than anyone. Especially at the ages where sexual activity starts to occur. IT's cool to have sex. everyone knows that.


I think sex ed. should be taught in school, but Obama wants it to be taught in Kindergarden....are you fuking kidding me?

This is the problem with Obama's plan. He wants it to be "taught" way before it will ever make any sense and/or appropriate.

I have no problem with teaching sex ed in school, although I believe the real responsability lies with the parents at home. Parents should teach their own children about real life, including sex. If they are not comfortable talking about it, then maybe school sex ed. can open that channel of comm. for them (although that's the chicken way out).

BTW Paul, you should go look up the curriculum that Obama has in mind to teach. He proposes to teach very small children about gay marriages, masturbation, and condom use to kids that have no clue what any of that is. Makes no sense. :no:

DieselNuts
09-17-2008, 08:25 AM
state your source.



again state source.
just type in "obama sex education" in google. You will get plenty of sources.

willum14pb
09-17-2008, 08:27 AM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+sex+education&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

here you go admin. Also refer to the thread i just posted in this section, about obama's plan. Thanks.

willum14pb
09-17-2008, 08:28 AM
This is the problem with Obama's plan. He wants it to be "taught" way before it will ever make any sense and/or appropriate.

I have no problem with teaching sex ed in school, although I believe the real responsability lies with the parents at home. Parents should teach their own children about real life, including sex. If they are not comfortable talking about it, then maybe school sex ed. can open that channel of comm. for them (although that's the chicken way out).

BTW Paul, you should go look up the curriculum that Obama has in mind to teach. He proposes to teach very small children about gay marriages, masturbation, and condom use to kids that have no clue what any of that is. Makes no sense. :no:'



:lmfao:

The more i hear about obama the worse..

4dmin
09-17-2008, 08:29 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492


He proposes to teach very small children about gay marriages, masturbation, and condom use to kids that have no clue what any of that is. Makes no sense.

cite him where he proposed to kindergartens

Total_Blender
09-17-2008, 08:29 AM
I think sex ed. should be taught in school, but Obama wants it to be taught in Kindergarden....are you fuking kidding me?

He supported legislation in the Illinois state senate that would teach young children how to deal with sexual predators in a manner appropriate for age and development. I don't see anything wrong with teaching kids how to identify and say NO to unwanted sexual advances. do you? . :screwy:

Here is the full-text of the Illinois state senate bill SB99 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&SessionID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=0099&print=true)

Note that parents can request their kids be taken out of any part of the curriculum they do not agree with if they choose. :goodjob:

4dmin
09-17-2008, 08:30 AM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+sex+education&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

here you go admin. Also refer to the thread i just posted in this section, about obama's plan. Thanks.

again you didn't post what he proposed you posed a google search link

4dmin
09-17-2008, 08:32 AM
He supported legislation in the Illinois state senate that would teach young children how to deal with sexual predators in a manner appropriate for age and development. I don't see anything wrong with teaching kids how to identify and say NO to unwanted sexual advances. do you? . :screwy:

Here is the full-text of the Illinois state senate bill SB99 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&SessionID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=0099&print=true)

Note that parents can request their kids be taken out of any part of the curriculum they do not agree with if they choose. :goodjob:

thank you. republicans on this board seem to be so full of BS it is mind boggling.

Jaimecbr900
09-17-2008, 08:34 AM
state your source.



again state source.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3395856&page=2

Quoted directly from the curriculum outline that Obama submitted to the Media:

This is for LEVEL 1, ie. 5-8 yr olds:

Topic 3: Reproduction

Level 1

Men and women have reproductive organs that enable them to have a child.
Men and women have specific cells in their bodies (sperm cells and egg cells) that enable them to reproduce.
Reproduction requires that a sperm and egg join.
Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
When a woman is pregnant, the fetus grows inside her body in her uterus.
A woman can be pregnant with more than one fetus at a time.
Babies usually come out of a woman’s body through an opening called a vagina.
Some babies are born by an operation called a Caesarian Section.
A woman’s breasts can provide milk for a baby.
Not all men and women have children.
People who cannot have children may choose to adopt.
SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

Topic 1: Sexuality Throughout Life

Level 1

Most children are curious about their bodies.
Bodies can feel good when touched.
Topic 2: Masturbation

Level 1

Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
Masturbation should be done in a private place.

Ummm, is this "age appropriate"????? :rolleyes:

Alan®
09-17-2008, 08:35 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492



cite him where he proposed to kindergartens
Oh my god. So because what you quoted didn't specifically state kindergarten he's wrong? Even your own quote says VERY SMALL CHILDREN.

4dmin
09-17-2008, 08:38 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3395856&page=2

Quoted directly from the curriculum outline that Obama submitted to the Media:

This is for LEVEL 1, ie. 5-8 yr olds:

Topic 3: Reproduction

Level 1


Men and women have reproductive organs that enable them to have a child.
Men and women have specific cells in their bodies (sperm cells and egg cells) that enable them to reproduce.
Reproduction requires that a sperm and egg join.
Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
When a woman is pregnant, the fetus grows inside her body in her uterus.
A woman can be pregnant with more than one fetus at a time.
Babies usually come out of a woman’s body through an opening called a vagina.
Some babies are born by an operation called a Caesarian Section.
A woman’s breasts can provide milk for a baby.
Not all men and women have children.
People who cannot have children may choose to adopt.
SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

Topic 1: Sexuality Throughout Life

Level 1

Most children are curious about their bodies.
Bodies can feel good when touched.
Topic 2: Masturbation

Level 1

Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
Masturbation should be done in a private place.
Ummm, is this "age appropriate"????? :rolleyes:


curriculum outline where is this on that abc page?

4dmin
09-17-2008, 08:41 AM
Oh my god. So because what you quoted didn't specifically state kindergarten he's wrong? Even your own quote says VERY SMALL CHILDREN.

dude if you plan on having discussions with the big boys you need to grow some balls an anti up or STFU. i asked 2x for cited material then i had to post an interview b/c of BS answers like usual on here :rolleyes:

hearsay/opinion alone are not valid answers in a discussion

Jaimecbr900
09-17-2008, 08:46 AM
curriculum outline where is this on that abc page?

You can read the entire curriculum proposed here:

http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf (http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf)

Topic 5: Sexual Orientation Subconcept: As people grow and develop they may begin to feel romantically and/or sexually attracted to people of the same and/or a different gender.

Level 1

Human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.
Some people are heterosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of another gender.
Some people are homosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender.
Homosexual men and women are also known as gay men and lesbians.
People deserve respect regardless of who they are attracted to.
Making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. “homo,” “fag,” “queer”) is disrespectful and hurtful.
Topic 6: Gender Identity (begins at level 2)

Topic 6: Sexual Fantasy (begins at level 3)

Topic 2: Contraception Subconcept: Contraception enables people to have sexual intercourse and avoid unintended pregnancy.

Topic 4: Abortion Subconcept: When a woman becomes pregnant and chooses not to have a child, she has the option of having an abortion.

Level 1

• Sometimes women become pregnant when they do not want to be or are unable to care for a child.
Topic 5: Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Level 1

Sexually transmitted diseases are caused by germs such as bacteria and viruses.
There are many types of sexually transmitted diseases.
People who do not engage in certain behaviors do not get STDs.
A small number of children are born with STDs that they get from their mothers during pregnancy or birth.
The most common ways for a person to get an STD is to participate in sexual behavior or share a needle with another person who is already infected with an STD.
Children who find needles on the ground should not touch them and should tell an adult.
Topic 5: Diversity Subconcept: Our society has a diversity of sexual attitudes and behaviors; some people are unfairly discriminated against because of the way they express their sexuality.

Level 1

Individuals differ in the way they think, act, look, and live.
Talking about differences helps people understand each other better.
The belief that all members of a group will behave the same way is called a stereotype.
Stereotypes can hurt people.
All people should receive fair and equal treatment.
People who are different are often treated negatively or unequally, which is unfair.


Yall can read the PDF in it's entirety (sp?) above. Make up your own minds if you would want YOUR 5-8 yr old being "taught" these things by someone who inevitably will inject THEIR OWN thought process, prejudices, and experiences or lack thereof into that curriculum. Think about it. :goodjob:

EJ25RUN
09-17-2008, 08:48 AM
i'm confused. I had sex ed in 3rd and 6th grade. How isit not already in the system.

4dmin
09-17-2008, 08:52 AM
Jaime again you didn't answer my question... you said he sent this to the media as his outline then you posted an ABC link... where is is on ABC site that he sent this in and this is his proposed outline?


Senator McCain signed a letter in June 2007 to Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus and Ranking Member Charles Grassley supporting a straight-forward reauthorization of the Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program and the continued distribution of $50 million dollars to programs that are required to teach only abstinence and marriage promotion and that censor important information about condoms and contraception.


In July 2006, Senator McCain voted against an amendment which would have invested in comprehensive sexuality education and teen pregnancy prevention initiatives, such as after-school programs for at-risk youth.[10]
· A statement from Senator McCain’s campaign noted that the Senator “strongly opposes efforts by the Democratic-controlled Congress to eliminate abstinence-only sex education classes for school-aged children. Senator McCain believes the correct policy for educating young children on this subject is to promote abstinence as the only safe and responsible alternative. To do otherwise is to send a mixed signal to children that, on the one hand they should not be sexually active, but on the other here is the way to go about it… to teach abstinence to children as it is the only truly safe and responsible policy. He is unequivocally opposed to Democrat-led efforts to eliminate federal funding for abstinence-only education in public schools.”

Alan®
09-17-2008, 08:53 AM
dude if you plan on having discussions with the big boys you need to grow some balls an anti up or STFU. i asked 2x for cited material then i had to post an interview b/c of BS answers like usual on here :rolleyes:

hearsay/opinion alone are not valid answers in a discussion
agreed but even your own post said VERY SMALL CHILDREN. Would that not almost certainly validate his post. Either way I don't agree that we need to go any lower than they age that we have it set at now. The problem isn't when we teach them it's how we teach them. I remember when I went to my first sex ed class in the 5th grade my gym coach kinda popped in the video and left the room. Came back asked if anyone had an questions and that was it. You think anyone payed attention? Had any idea what the hell was going on?

4dmin
09-17-2008, 08:59 AM
agreed but even your own post said VERY SMALL CHILDREN. Would that not almost certainly validate his post. Either way I don't agree that we need to go any lower than they age that we have it set at now. The problem isn't when we teach them it's how we teach them. I remember when I went to my first sex ed class in the 5th grade my gym coach kinda popped in the video and left the room. Came back asked if anyone had an questions and that was it. You think anyone payed attention? Had any idea what the hell was going on?


my own post "VERY SMALL CHILDREN" where did i say this...? furthermore how does this validate hearsay? Jaime has not cited anything w/ Obama's name attached. read my last post. teaching small children about INAPPROPRIATE touching is perfectly fine and is what he proposed. i'm sure some of you good Catholics are fine w/ alter boy action but i find it quite disturbing.


Senator Obama supports comprehensive sex education that is age-appropriate.[1] (http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=1149&varuniqueuserid=59704367868#_edn1) He is a co-sponsor of the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s972is.txt.pdf), which would provide funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education.
· Senator Obama is also a co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s21is.txt.pdf), which is a package of legislation that seeks to prevent unintended pregnancy and increase access to comprehensive contraceptive services and information.
· Senator Obama firmly opposes federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs[2] (http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=1149&varuniqueuserid=59704367868#_edn2) and has stated that “it’s the right thing to do…to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”[3] (http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=1149&varuniqueuserid=59704367868#_edn3)
· He supports sex education for younger ages, but only if it is age-appropriate, and has indicated that his position is based on the fact that age-appropriate comprehensive sex education includes such topics as learning the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching to educate young children on what to do should they ever be faced with an abusive situation.[4] (http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=1149&varuniqueuserid=59704367868#_edn4)

bigdare23
09-17-2008, 09:05 AM
I don't see anything wrong with introducing sex ed early. I remember when I learned about sex, I was about that age (around 1st-2nd grade). Someone at school mention "SEX" and I ask my mother what it was. At first she was like WTF, but continued to explained what it was. She knew that if she didn't explain it then, I would of learned about it somewhere else, since that was already the topic of some of the kid's minds.

The point is, I agree kids develop at different rates, but what if your kid encounters another kid that's more developed? The younger someone is, the easier it is to influence them. So I'm for educating the young about sex correctly (maybe not 5 year olds, but you get my point).

Alan®
09-17-2008, 09:21 AM
For you're reading pleasure Bill SB009 that Obama supported

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=



14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS.

Total_Blender
09-17-2008, 09:22 AM
We need programs that hold people accountable for providing correct and science based information. If I had someone responsible for teaching sex-ed putting in videos and leaving the classroom on my watch they would be out of a job.

Its sad that the education policies we already have are being so poorly executed. All those books the state has as "required reading," well... we watched a lot of videos and movies and did very little reading. Some people I graduated High School with can barely even read. Out of the 50% of kids who didn't drop out about half had to take the graduation test twice :ninja:

4dmin
09-17-2008, 09:30 AM
For you're reading pleasure Bill SB009 that Obama supported

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=

question wasn't that he is for EDUCATION for k-12 it was the curriculum he is for. read my quoted Obama post.

Total_Blender
09-17-2008, 09:31 AM
For you're reading pleasure Bill SB009 that Obama supported

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=

Yeah, I posted that earlier. The part you quoted was the outline of the program and does not go into detail about what parts will be taught to what grades, really none of the legislation does, they leave it to the local school boards to decide. It just says that kids will have all that info by the time they are in grade 12.

You must have also missed this part:


23 (9) Course material and instruction shall discuss
24 and provide for the development of positive communication
25 skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid
26 unwanted sexual activity.
27 (10) Course material and instruction shall
28 emphasize that the pupil has the power to control
29 personal behavior. Pupils shall be encouraged to base
30 their actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of
31 responsibility, self-control, and ethical considerations,
32 such as respect for oneself and others.

And this one:

and whenever such
15 courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K 6
16 through 12, then such courses also shall include age
17 appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually
18 transmitted infections, including the prevention,
19 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. However, no pupil shall
20 be required to take or participate in any family life class
21 or course on HIV AIDS instruction if his parent or guardian
22 submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or
23 participate in such course or program shall not be reason for
24 suspension or expulsion of such pupil.

:goodjob:

Elbow
09-17-2008, 09:33 AM
Keep sex ed like it has been, parents should do the most stuff. Putting it in kindergarten is almost freaky. I do know more then likely only 2% of kids are going to believe and remember everything taught in sex ed. It's not like kids will stop having sex.

Jaimecbr900
09-17-2008, 09:34 AM
Jaime again you didn't answer my question... you said he sent this to the media as his outline then you posted an ABC link... where is is on ABC site that he sent this in and this is his proposed outline?

No, Paul. Actually, I was the only one that posted the direct links and excerpts from the actual pdf that Obama sent out. So I did answer the question of "source" directly.;)

Second, yall are talking about two different pieces of legislature. One is what Obama ALREADY tried to get thru in his home state and the other is what he PROPOSES IF he is elected President. Two different things although pretty close to each other in what he wants to happen.

Did you read the entire pdf file of the outline of the curriculum? Read it and tell me that if you still think that 5-8 yr olds should be introduced to masturbation, same sex marriages, STD's, sexual intercourse, and explicit anatomy by the SCHOOL???? As a father of a 9 yr old, I say "no" because I want and AM the one responsible for teaching that to my own children, not the school.

Alan®
09-17-2008, 09:37 AM
Yeah, I posted that earlier. The part you quoted was the outline of the program and does not go into detail about what parts will be taught to what grades, really none of the legislation does, they leave it to the local school boards to decide. It just says that kids will have all that info by the time they are in grade 12.

You must have also missed this part:


23 (9) Course material and instruction shall discuss
24 and provide for the development of positive communication
25 skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid
26 unwanted sexual activity.
27 (10) Course material and instruction shall
28 emphasize that the pupil has the power to control
29 personal behavior. Pupils shall be encouraged to base
30 their actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of
31 responsibility, self-control, and ethical considerations,
32 such as respect for oneself and others.

And this one:

and whenever such
15 courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K 6
16 through 12, then such courses also shall include age
17 appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually
18 transmitted infections, including the prevention,
19 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. However, no pupil shall
20 be required to take or participate in any family life class
21 or course on HIV AIDS instruction if his parent or guardian
22 submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or
23 participate in such course or program shall not be reason for
24 suspension or expulsion of such pupil.

:goodjob:
I did see it but still think that at that age it's up to the parents.

4dmin
09-17-2008, 09:40 AM
No, Paul. Actually, I was the only one that posted the direct links and excerpts from the actual pdf that Obama sent out. So I did answer the question of "source" directly.;)

Second, yall are talking about two different pieces of legislature. One is what Obama ALREADY tried to get thru in his home state and the other is what he PROPOSES IF he is elected President. Two different things although pretty close to each other in what he wants to happen.

Did you read the entire pdf file of the outline of the curriculum? Read it and tell me that if you still think that 5-8 yr olds should be introduced to masturbation, same sex marriages, STD's, sexual intercourse, and explicit anatomy by the SCHOOL???? As a father of a 9 yr old, I say "no" because I want and AM the one responsible for teaching that to my own children, not the school. no i didn't read it b/c his name is no where on it not did i find him on site source saying he proposed it. where are the sources you say he sent this pdf to the media as his proposed plan?

4dmin
09-17-2008, 09:45 AM
I did see it but still think that at that age it's up to the parents.

thats why they have a OPT OUT ga has it b/c i remember kids having to do other sh!t while we had sex ed - they also separated boys/girls for these classes. my first sex ed was in 8th grade and i started having sex in 10th - i'm sure it gets worse each year.

my senior year in HS i got to watch the MIRACLE OF LIFE - if they showed that to middle school kids they would never have sex :upchuck: it is one of the most disturbing vids i have ever seen in my life.

Deke
09-17-2008, 09:46 AM
My parents explained sex to me back in kindergarten or possibly before. One of my uncles had a daughter out of wedlock and instead of lie, they just explains how it works. I didn't mess me up any. That being said, I was, of course, far superior to your average toddler. I'm not sure the majority of dumbasses could handle it. :)

Total_Blender
09-17-2008, 09:48 AM
As a father of a 9 yr old, I say "no" because I want and AM the one responsible for teaching that to my own children, not the school.

The problem is that a lot of parents aren't teaching this kind of stuff to their kids and the gov't can't force the parents to teach it to them. I think that in order to be a productive adult in our society there are certain things you have to know

what money is and how it is used
look both ways when you cross the street
basic personal cleanliness
how babies are made
what STD's are and how they can be prevented

If parents aren't teaching this stuff to kids (and most of them aren't) who will? No matter who you are, Oil compant CEO or bagger at Wal-Mart you need to know about STD's and pregnancy prevention.

Jaimecbr900
09-17-2008, 10:03 AM
The problem is that a lot of parents aren't teaching this kind of stuff to their kids and the gov't can't force the parents to teach it to them. I think that in order to be a productive adult in our society there are certain things you have to know

what money is and how it is used
look both ways when you cross the street
basic personal cleanliness
how babies are made
what STD's are and how they can be prevented

If parents aren't teaching this stuff to kids (and most of them aren't) who will? No matter who you are, Oil compant CEO or bagger at Wal-Mart you need to know about STD's and pregnancy prevention.

While I agree there are basics everyone should know, there is a basic problem with brain development. At 5 yrs old, it is humanly impossible to comprehend some concepts that you or I find "basic", i.e. sex. At that age, their brains aren't physically developed enough to understand a lot of things. So why not just teach them calculus or trig too???? Because they wouldn't understand it, right? How is this any different? There are certain developmental levels everyone has to go thru before growing up and maturing. So no matter how many times you sit down a 5 yr old and explain....."this penis goes in that vagina, stir, and VOILA....babies are made" they will only look at you and say :thinking: . I mean, everyone should know how to drive, right? What about just going ahead and starting them out on that at 5 yrs old too? Why not? What about balancing a check book? We all should know how to do that too, right? Why not teach them that?.....for the same reasons that sex ed. at that age is inappropriate (sp?).....they CAN'T comprehend it properly.

EJ25RUN
09-17-2008, 10:11 AM
Agreed on teaching it that early is not just unnecessary but it is also something they just don;t need to know. I think i was around 8 when i fully got what it is.

BanginJimmy
09-17-2008, 10:15 AM
I actually think Obama is on the right path with this, but some of it is absolutely retarded.

1. Kindergarden aged kids should be taught where it is inappropriate for other people to touch them and what to do if someone does.

1a. Kindergarden aged kids have no reason to be learning about sexuality, abortion, or anything else. They wont understand it, or as aleady said, teachers will inject their own biases into the discussion. Keep it only on track with protecting kids from predators.

4dmin
09-17-2008, 10:30 AM
I actually think Obama is on the right path with this, but some of it is absolutely retarded.

1. Kindergarden aged kids should be taught where it is inappropriate for other people to touch them and what to do if someone does.

1a. Kindergarden aged kids have no reason to be learning about sexuality, abortion, or anything else. They wont understand it, or as aleady said, teachers will inject their own biases into the discussion. Keep it only on track with protecting kids from predators.

agreed but i haven't seen a cited proposed plan Obama put in that stated the above to greade K

Tracy
09-17-2008, 10:40 AM
You can read the entire curriculum proposed here:

http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf (http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf)

Topic 5: Sexual Orientation Subconcept: As people grow and develop they may begin to feel romantically and/or sexually attracted to people of the same and/or a different gender.

Level 1

Human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.
Some people are heterosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of another gender.
Some people are homosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender.
Homosexual men and women are also known as gay men and lesbians.
People deserve respect regardless of who they are attracted to.
Making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. “homo,” “fag,” “queer”) is disrespectful and hurtful.
Topic 6: Gender Identity (begins at level 2)

Topic 6: Sexual Fantasy (begins at level 3)

Topic 2: Contraception Subconcept: Contraception enables people to have sexual intercourse and avoid unintended pregnancy.

Topic 4: Abortion Subconcept: When a woman becomes pregnant and chooses not to have a child, she has the option of having an abortion.

Level 1

• Sometimes women become pregnant when they do not want to be or are unable to care for a child.
Topic 5: Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Level 1

Sexually transmitted diseases are caused by germs such as bacteria and viruses.
There are many types of sexually transmitted diseases.
People who do not engage in certain behaviors do not get STDs.
A small number of children are born with STDs that they get from their mothers during pregnancy or birth.
The most common ways for a person to get an STD is to participate in sexual behavior or share a needle with another person who is already infected with an STD.
Children who find needles on the ground should not touch them and should tell an adult.
Topic 5: Diversity Subconcept: Our society has a diversity of sexual attitudes and behaviors; some people are unfairly discriminated against because of the way they express their sexuality.

Level 1

Individuals differ in the way they think, act, look, and live.
Talking about differences helps people understand each other better.
The belief that all members of a group will behave the same way is called a stereotype.
Stereotypes can hurt people.
All people should receive fair and equal treatment.
People who are different are often treated negatively or unequally, which is unfair.


Yall can read the PDF in it's entirety (sp?) above. Make up your own minds if you would want YOUR 5-8 yr old being "taught" these things by someone who inevitably will inject THEIR OWN thought process, prejudices, and experiences or lack thereof into that curriculum. Think about it. :goodjob:

Yep. I do want my kids taught all of that :) I have specific experience in how "sex education" changed my life. I'll go ahead and say (even though it is very personal) that the exact time that I was taught IN SCHOOL about this stuff (age 11) is the time I realized it was ok to tell people that I had been molested since I was 4. I was taught in school at 11 what sex was and at the same time I was taught what was not ok. I decided THAT DAY to tell someone at my school about what had been happening to me. The unfortunate thing is that my parents hadn't talked to me about any of this. So, there is the relevant argument about what parents should be teaching their kids at home. Then again, it could be your parents who are doing it to you ;) It wasn't mine, it was another family member, but the point still stands. Not every child has a stable home life and they may not being taught this stuff at home. For some children, teachers are someone to trust and look up to.

I wish I had sex education in kindergarten. Maybe I wouldn't have suffered for as long as I did. Just something else to think about :goodjob:

4dmin
09-17-2008, 10:42 AM
Yep. I do want my kids taught all of that :) I have specific experience in how "sex education" changed my life. I'll go ahead and say (even though it is very personal) that the exact time that I was taught IN SCHOOL about this stuff (age 11) is the time I realized it was ok to tell people that I had been molested since I was 4. I was taught in school at 11 what sex was and at the same time I was taught what was not ok. I decided THAT DAY to tell someone at my school about what had been happening to me. The unfortunate thing is that my parents hadn't talked to me about any of this. So, there is the relevant argument about what parents should be teaching their kids at home. Then again, it could be your parents who are doing it to you ;) It wasn't mine, it was another family member, but the point still stands. Not every child has a stable home life and they may not being taught this stuff at home. For some children, teachers are someone to trust and look up to.

I wish I had sex education in kindergarten. Maybe I wouldn't have suffered for as long as I did. Just something else to think about :goodjob:

wow good post.

Alan®
09-17-2008, 10:56 AM
thats why they have a OPT OUT ga has it b/c i remember kids having to do other sh!t while we had sex ed - they also separated boys/girls for these classes. my first sex ed was in 8th grade and i started having sex in 10th - i'm sure it gets worse each year.

my senior year in HS i got to watch the MIRACLE OF LIFE - if they showed that to middle school kids they would never have sex :upchuck: it is one of the most disturbing vids i have ever seen in my life.
Again though I think that programs like this simply offer parents an escape route for not teaching their kids the values needed to navigate our world today. Besides programs like this simply make the government bigger and isn't that part of the problem.

Total_Blender
09-17-2008, 11:14 AM
I don't see where you are going with this... a program that specifies how sex-ed should be taught will not necessarily make government bigger. It is just a directive to the teachers and administrators that are already there, and are state employees, not federal. And STD's and teen pregnancy don't really have anything to do with the size of the gov't ya know.

Again, you guys probably won't see a specific list of what is to be taught when... the finer points will be left for the States/local school boards to decide. Keep in mind that school boards are elected by the people so they will have concerned parents putting pressure on them to keep the material appropriate.

Ran
09-17-2008, 11:17 AM
ABC Article for Paul

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/obama-targeted.html

Could be either good or bad. IMO, 4-5 years old is way too young for sex education. I'm no problem informing them about what is "inappropriate touching" like Tracy stated, but actual sex education should be out of the question until much later in life.

Jaimecbr900
09-17-2008, 11:18 AM
Yep. I do want my kids taught all of that :) I have specific experience in how "sex education" changed my life. I'll go ahead and say (even though it is very personal) that the exact time that I was taught IN SCHOOL about this stuff (age 11) is the time I realized it was ok to tell people that I had been molested since I was 4. I was taught in school at 11 what sex was and at the same time I was taught what was not ok. I decided THAT DAY to tell someone at my school about what had been happening to me. The unfortunate thing is that my parents hadn't talked to me about any of this. So, there is the relevant argument about what parents should be teaching their kids at home. Then again, it could be your parents who are doing it to you ;) It wasn't mine, it was another family member, but the point still stands. Not every child has a stable home life and they may not being taught this stuff at home. For some children, teachers are someone to trust and look up to.

I wish I had sex education in kindergarten. Maybe I wouldn't have suffered for as long as I did. Just something else to think about :goodjob:


While I totally understand and even agree that it's not a bad idea for schools to teach young children what to look for/stay away from in an effort to avoid or expose child molestation, trying to "teach" them about abortions, contraception, gay marriages, and masturbation have nothing to do with child molestation IMO.

BTW, I'm sorry to hear about your terrible experience. :cry:

BobbyFresco
09-17-2008, 11:59 AM
http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/player4.swf?autoplay=0&tinyimg=http://i34.tinypic.com/ngzuva.jpg&Addr=http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos&v=playFLV.php?loc=http://api.ning.com/files/uR729jcouJk7x4mGV6Ui0GruJa7t9m73buuaQYDdn4iDqh0bVQ EGbMw0Cp*U3m2D73no*hnz-264cGHBPwqNAxQn6Scgfdkr/tmp55541.flv&play=1&vCode=PC94WSO1C7t1088y&enctrch=&vl=wshhy8801t7C1OSW49CP&ens=2&vid=10479




Shiit like this is the precise reason why sex ed should be taught at an early age.

Whether some of you want to feign ignorance to the fact that kids are more sex savvy than most of us were at that age purely out of conveniece because of the issue or not, proof can't be disputed.

With all the sexually themed shows on television and with these teen stars that parents allow their kids to idolize getting publicity for immoral behavior, how can one expect to believe that kids aren't at risk to mimic such behaviors?

metalman
09-17-2008, 12:35 PM
While I totally understand and even agree that it's not a bad idea for schools to teach young children what to look for/stay away from in an effort to avoid or expose child molestation, trying to "teach" them about abortions, contraception, gay marriages, and masturbation have nothing to do with child molestation IMO.

BTW, I'm sorry to hear about your terrible experience. :cry:

I agree. :goodjob:

I find it ridiculous that some people actually want the government to 'raise' their children. :eek:

On the other hand, teaching abstinence only doesnt work either. I think general information about human sexuality/anatomy is appropriate to discuss WHEN age relevant in presentation. The morals, choices, etc and rest of the child raising should be left to families...even if they all dont do it perfectly. make no mistake, if you let the gubment raise your kids...they will...and that is NOT a good thing.

4dmin
09-17-2008, 12:45 PM
ABC Article for Paul

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/obama-targeted.html

Could be either good or bad. IMO, 4-5 years old is way too young for sex education. I'm no problem informing them about what is "inappropriate touching" like Tracy stated, but actual sex education should be out of the question until much later in life.

dude same sh!t all of us posted...

the point of teaching "SEX EDUCATION" to grade K consisted of teaching the children about inappropriate touching... why is this a bad thing? some of you are putting your spin on it. i guess most of you would rather your children growing up not knowing what inappropriate touching is. for anyone to say this should be taught at home... hello most molestation is by someone close to the child - family, family friends, etc children can see/learn much worse things from peers/tv so what is the issue?


"'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,'" Obama told the Daily Herald (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html). "'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"


The legislation Obama supported also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about how to recognize "inappropriate touching." Bill Burton, Obama's national press secretary, responded on Tuesday to McCain's ad with a sharply worded statement.

“It is shameful and downright perverse," said Burton, "for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls -- a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1836909,00.html) he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why."

BobbyFresco
09-17-2008, 12:49 PM
I agree. :goodjob:

I find it ridiculous that some people actually want the government to 'raise' their children. :eek:

On the other hand, teaching abstinence only doesnt work either. I think general information about human sexuality/anatomy is appropriate to discuss WHEN age relevant in presentation. The morals, choices, etc and rest of the child raising should be left to families...even if they all dont do it perfectly. make no mistake, if you let the gubment raise your kids...they will...and that is NOT a good thing.



It would be reasonable to expect parents to be responsible for teaching their children about sex and everything that comes along with it but we also have to be realistic.

We live in a society where parents allow their children to deify celebrities, where these kids look up to said celebrities and not their parents.

We live in a society where teachers are spending more time with our children than we are and thus, teachers are essentially raising our kids.

We live in a society where parents don't allow their children to be children. We have young girls dressing way too maturely at a young age in the name of being able to express their individuality. Chasing boys and having boyfriends when they should still be playing with toys. Boys chasing girls and having sex when they should be out playing sports or video games or just doing things that a normal adolescent should have interest in doing.

Is this right? NO

Again, facts are facts and until parents start raising their children full time and by full time I mean taking interest in every aspect of their childrens lives, children will have to contend with pregnancies and std's.


If parents aren't doing their job at home then someone should do it for them.

4dmin
09-17-2008, 12:54 PM
I agree. :goodjob:

I find it ridiculous that some people actually want the government to 'raise' their children. :eek:

On the other hand, teaching abstinence only doesnt work either. I think general information about human sexuality/anatomy is appropriate to discuss WHEN age relevant in presentation. The morals, choices, etc and rest of the child raising should be left to families...even if they all dont do it perfectly. make no mistake, if you let the gubment raise your kids...they will...and that is NOT a good thing.i think it is more for parents aren't teaching their children at home so someone needs to step up to the plate. with high divorce rates and current society conditions children need to learn at an early age. sh!t many people on here think a preggers 17 yr old is perfectly fine :rolleyes:

BobbyFresco
09-17-2008, 12:58 PM
i think it is more for parents aren't teaching their children at home so someone needs to step up to the plate. with high divorce rates and current society conditions children need to learn at an early age. sh!t many people on here think a preggers 17 yr old is perfectly fine :rolleyes:


Exactly.

So you don't want the government telling how to raise your kids or teach them anything useful but you want to biiitch about your tax money going to raise kids that maybe could have been avoided by a little education.:thinking:

Ran
09-17-2008, 01:00 PM
the point of teaching "SEX EDUCATION" to grade K consisted of teaching the children about inappropriate touching... why is this a bad thing? some of you are putting your spin on it. i guess most of you would rather your children growing up not knowing what inappropriate touching is. for anyone to say this should be taught at home... hello most molestation is by someone close to the child - family, family friends, etc children can see/learn much worse things from peers/tv so what is the issue?Actually, that is only part of what Obama wants implemented. While I do agree that having a child know when they're being molested is a good thing for the child's safety, actual sex education can wait. A 4yr old doesn't need to know the specifics of sexual intercourse, STD's, and other such info.

Jaimecbr900
09-17-2008, 01:00 PM
I agree. :goodjob:

I find it ridiculous that some people actually want the government to 'raise' their children. :eek:

On the other hand, teaching abstinence only doesnt work either. I think general information about human sexuality/anatomy is appropriate to discuss WHEN age relevant in presentation. The morals, choices, etc and rest of the child raising should be left to families...even if they all dont do it perfectly. make no mistake, if you let the gubment raise your kids...they will...and that is NOT a good thing.


I agree. There's nothing wrong with small children knowing what a penis is and what a vagina is or where they are, etc. The issue I had was that everyone was praising Obama for "introducing" this idea that it should be started at an early age in schools.

I've been in my children's classes when they were that age. It's utter chaos sometimes when there's even time for chaos. I feel that teachers are asked to do way too much already and many parents take advantage of that by pawning off THEIR OWN duties and blame onto those teachers. This idea is just another way of shifting responsability onto the school system rather than where it really should be, which is at home. I want my children to learn Math, English, Grammar, Science, and even get a little exercise while they are there. I don't want my children to be taught Religion, Morals, nor Sex as part of that curriculum. Why? Because I whole heartedly feel that is MY JOB.

I have had zero problems discussing sex with either one of my children, including my teenage daughter. We have a semi-open channel of communication regarding that subject......"semi" because there just some things daddy turns over to mommy to handle....;) :D I still discuss sex with my 19 yr old God-daughter. Matter of fact, last time her and her long time BF came to visit, I looked both of them right in the face right in front of me and asked Katrina if she was still NOT having sex with her BF....and I LIKE her BF (she's waiting until she gets married to do "it":bump: ). I have NO problem discussing it openly and candidly with any of my children, both blood and borrowed. ;) I've even discussed some things with my 9 yr old son....how to talk to girls, hold doors open, have good manners, no touching in bad places, no rough play, etc.

This is the reason why I find it hard to understand how anyone would want to forgo that bonding experience and give it to some teacher that your child may or may not remember in a few years. Although I understand Tracy's point that sometimes some children only have teachers as role models and confidants. I still would rather handle discussing explicit sex details with my own children on my own.

:2cents:

metalman
09-17-2008, 01:05 PM
If parents aren't doing their job at home then someone should do it for them

Sadly this piss poor 'excuse' is used for all manner of government intrusion into personal liberties and family matters.

I do NOT subscribe to a 'two wrongs make it right' philosophy.

My mother was a state social worker so I am keenly aware of the problems within society & families.

If youre really into 'facts' then the fact of incompentancy of our government in managing far less important matters should clearly disqualify it from a far more important job.....raising children. Period.
Futhermore, what incompetent committee or thinktank will set forth the rules? And who's morals will be used as the guide? The fact is there are some issues that government should never trifle with, nor try.

Jaimecbr900
09-17-2008, 01:11 PM
Paul, you do know that when you have Metalman and I on the same side......you don't stand a chance....right? :D :lmfao: ;) JP.



Hey, on a side note.....you never called me back yesterday about this weekend. Do you have one or not? Are you needing what we talked about?

metalman
09-17-2008, 01:17 PM
i think it is more for parents aren't teaching their children at home so someone needs to step up to the plate. with high divorce rates and current society conditions children need to learn at an early age. sh!t many people on here think a preggers 17 yr old is perfectly fine :rolleyes:

I dont think the government can 'step up to the plate', nor should they try.
I am NOT at all convinced kids getting preggo at a young age is due to lack of info either. In my generation there was far less information given or available overall...and the teen preggo rate was then far far lower.
I rarely meet any kid anymore who doesnt know plenty about sex.

The real issue is the MORAL CHOICES being made. People nowdays are making different choices, even though information abounds. One might argue that morals are declining...I think this is the case...BUT I have no faith that any government can change that. I dont want the gubment dabbling in moral issues. That must be left to individuals and families.

4dmin
09-17-2008, 01:29 PM
I dont think the government can 'step up to the plate', nor should they try.
I am NOT at all convinced kids getting preggo at a young age is due to lack of info either. In my generation there was far less information given or available overall...and the teen preggo rate was then far far lower.
I rarely meet any kid anymore who doesnt know plenty about sex.

The real issue is the MORAL CHOICES being made. People nowdays are making different choices, even though information abounds. One might argue that morals are declining...I think this is the case...BUT I have no faith that any government can change that. I dont want the gubment dabbling in moral issues. That must be left to individuals and families.

i completely agree, i think a lot of the problem is the current parent situation... many have relied on old methods in changing times. telling your child not to have sex b/c the good book says to wait to marriage is a poor choice IMO b/c it does nothing to discourage such. especially when they can see sexual acts all over the TV, internet, etc.

i think this is a fine line w/ gov't but someone needs to give option to parents/children for better education. leaving it up to the parents got us to this point :goodjob:



jaime i called and got no answer... emailed waiting on response.

Total_Blender
09-17-2008, 02:13 PM
"Morals" is a tricky word. A lot of Bible thumpers use "morals" to force their religion onto others. I think the community school boards can come up with standards as to what is acceptable to teach children and what is not acceptable. Good touch / bad touch is something that is pretty universal across the board. Regardless of your beliefs on abortion, it is possible to present abortion and its effects/consequences to teens from a scientific standpoint. It is also possible to show the socio-economic consequences of teen pregnancy in an objective manner that will show teens that it is outside society's norms without bringing religion or whatever into the mix.

Edit: just to add to the mix... a lot of parents are uneducated about this stuff themselves. You think half the people on IA know what HPV is or the ways its transmitted?:ninja:

man
09-17-2008, 02:27 PM
thank you. republicans on this board seem to be so full of BS it is mind boggling.

So do the Dems...

4dmin
09-17-2008, 02:51 PM
So do the Dems...

i would consider BS to fall under making a statement and not being able to back it up... most of my opinions have some searchable facts to them other then stating blanket BS answers i've read in the majority of these threads.

honestly i think it would make less hassle to just say i'm voting for him b/c he is black then trying to have an intelligent conversion.

Jaimecbr900
09-17-2008, 02:52 PM
"Morals" is a tricky word. A lot of Bible thumpers use "morals" to force their religion onto others. I think the community school boards can come up with standards as to what is acceptable to teach children and what is not acceptable.

Wait, see here is where one of the flaws to this idea lies. You really think there are NO "bible thumpers" as you call them in those same school boards? Now, what would you or Paul think if the wise ole school board decided that a religion based sex ed program was best? That's my point. Sex ed. should be something taught at HOME where the viewpoint of the parents is the only one that matters until the children reach the age of majority.

So just like Metalman said, why would you trust the gov't.....same gov't who can't handle infinitely EASIER tasks w/o screwing the pooch royally.....to teach YOUR child? :thinking:



Good touch / bad touch is something that is pretty universal across the board. Regardless of your beliefs on abortion, it is possible to present abortion and its effects/consequences to teens from a scientific standpoint. It is also possible to show the socio-economic consequences of teen pregnancy in an objective manner that will show teens that it is outside society's norms without bringing religion or whatever into the mix.

It would be almost impossible to discuss abortion w/o having some type of discussion about religious belief and morals. It's not possible. What are you going to teach children? What an abortion LOOKS like? HOW it's done? Outside of that, its all about CHOICE and that CHOICE is ALWAYS made based on religious beliefs and morals. So that's like giving you the price of a car that's for sale, yet NOT tell you anything else about it. You'd be left with MORE questions than answers, right? So, how are you going to explain abortion, masturbation, contraception?......all of which have a REALLY BIG Religious conotation associated with it because most people use their strong beliefs as a basis for their stance on any one of those three.


Edit: just to add to the mix... a lot of parents are uneducated about this stuff themselves. You think half the people on IA know what HPV is or the ways its transmitted?:ninja:

Human Papillomavirus is something that 5 yr olds have about a 0% chance of getting, transmitting, or even knowing how to spell. So how is that going to help in preventing it's transmission?

5-8yr olds should know where their "no touch" zones are and how male/female differs, but to discuss HPV, abortion, contraceptives, masturbation, and the like is inappropriate for that age group. Teach them what's acceptable and not acceptable touching. Teach them to respect each other's privates. Teach them that girls are girls and boys are boys. But you'll have the same result trying to teach them about HPV as you would trying to teach them the Theory of Relativity.

4dmin
09-17-2008, 03:01 PM
5-8yr olds should know where their "no touch" zones are and how male/female differs, but to discuss HPV, abortion, contraceptives, masturbation, and the like is inappropriate for that age group. Teach them what's acceptable and not acceptable touching. Teach them to respect each other's privates. Teach them that girls are girls and boys are boys. But you'll have the same result trying to teach them about HPV as you would trying to teach them the Theory of Relativity.again where did Obama support such talks to grade K? b/c i have yet to see this any any of the sources posted.

you posted a PDF that had no relation to him other then you saying he sent this proposal to the media... what media was this fox news? :thinking:

so you know 25% of 14-19 yr olds have HPV... and these type of numbers rarely go down. so never to early to learn about STDs IMO.

like i said show all kids the MIRACLE OF LIFE... once you see 1 gallon of fluid drop out of that overly bearded 70's clam you will never want to have sex :lmfao:

metalman
09-17-2008, 03:10 PM
Wait, see here is where one of the flaws to this idea lies. You really think there are NO "bible thumpers" as you call them in those same school boards? Now, what would you or Paul think if the wise ole school board decided that a religion based sex ed program was best? That's my point.



:goodjob: You beat me to it! lol...

That IS the whole issue with schools/gubment teaching YOUR kids things involving moral questions...they will not likely be using YOUR morals but an opinion by some 'majority'...and for issues involving individual choice and morality that doesnt cut it.

OneSlow5pt0
09-17-2008, 03:11 PM
i remember when we had sex thing in like 5th or 6th grade,and i could carless bout it then,had no effect on me..........and my parents didnt tell me,everything i know came from TV,Movies, and ofcourse porn..lol

metalman
09-17-2008, 03:12 PM
... once you see 1 gallon of fluid drop out of that overly bearded 70's clam you will never want to have sex :lmfao:

Perhaps this is why preggo rates were so much lower when I was young...the clams were ALL bearded! :lmfao:

4dmin
09-17-2008, 03:22 PM
Perhaps this is why preggo rates were so much lower when I was young...the clams were ALL bearded! :lmfao:

:cheers: ... have you ever seen Girl Next Door? ending plot HS kids decide to remake sex-ed video with porn stars :lmfao:

Total_Blender
09-17-2008, 03:32 PM
Wait, see here is where one of the flaws to this idea lies. You really think there are NO "bible thumpers" as you call them in those same school boards? Now, what would you or Paul think if the wise ole school board decided that a religion based sex ed program was best? That's my point. Sex ed. should be something taught at HOME where the viewpoint of the parents is the only one that matters until the children reach the age of majority.

The "viewpoint" of a lot of parents is that it shouldn't be taught at all. Or to teach it when its too late. As for Bible thumpers on schoolboards, usually when they try to pass programs that are religion-based they get pwned by constitutional lawyers (like Obama and Biden).

5-8yr olds should know where their "no touch" zones are and how male/female differs, but to discuss HPV, abortion, contraceptives, masturbation, and the like is inappropriate for that age group. Teach them what's acceptable and not acceptable touching. Teach them to respect each other's privates. Teach them that girls are girls and boys are boys.

I wasn't talking about 5 year olds in that post I was talking about teens. I agree that 8 is a couple years too early to discuss masturbation but the idea is to discuss issues a little bit ahead of time so kids will be prepared for them. I think I was 11 when I started. :ninja:

Jaimecbr900
09-17-2008, 04:04 PM
again where did Obama support such talks to grade K? b/c i have yet to see this any any of the sources posted.



Here you go, again:

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/391467.aspx
June 12, 2008

Quotes from this article:


The Obama campaign told The Brody File last year through spokesman Bill Burton that:

"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."

Back then, the campaign directed me to Oregon Department of Education guidelines which they said would give people a good idea of where Obama is at on the issue...

Part of the problem here is that many school districts across the country look to The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) when shaping guidelines. Those guidelines may make many parents shudder. They include teaching children 5-8 years old about homosexuality, names for body parts and specific details about how a baby is made...

Regarding the polling that was done on this issue, the Republican strategist told me that:

“No one seeing those guidelines believed that that material was age appropriate.”

The Obama campaign sent out the SIECUS guidelines to MSNBC when asked about this issue last year. The problem confronting the Obama campaign on this issue is that while he may not be for any of the more intense language contained in the SIECUS guidelines, he does support age-appropriate sex ed for kindergartners and the polling suggests voters are uncomfortable with that...

...When Obama was a state senator in 2003, he tried to get a bill passed on this issue of sex education. Read below from The Associated Press:

Obama's legislation would have altered Illinois' sex education standards to include instruction in any grade from kindergarten through 12th, rather than grades 6-12. It deleted language calling for sex education courses to honor "monogamous heterosexual marriage" and would have softened the state's emphasis on abstinence, while adding that any course materials should be "age and developmentally appropriate" and based on the latest scientific studies.


Obama was chairman of a state Senate committee that passed the legislation along party lines in March 2003. The full Senate never voted on the measure, and it ultimately died."



There is but one of the reports that confirm that OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN sent the media the SEICUS guidelines for sex ed as "his" stance on sex ed for younger children. IT IS THE SAME document that I linked earlier in pdf format. IT IS THE SAME place I got my earlier excerpts from. So if you connect the dots, it is what OBAMA himself is using as "his" views on sex ed for children. Need more "proof"? I'll do a little more research and find more.

Jaimecbr900
09-17-2008, 04:14 PM
:goodjob: You beat me to it! lol...

That IS the whole issue with schools/gubment teaching YOUR kids things involving moral questions...they will not likely be using YOUR morals but an opinion by some 'majority'...and for issues involving individual choice and morality that doesnt cut it.

And that "majority" is.....people like SEICUS....or worse yet.....some administrator on a power trip.

While a lot of the guidelines outlined there are fine for the older kids, some of the ones I outlined earlier are just nuts IMO. Seems I'm not the only one that thinks so though. ;)

4dmin
09-17-2008, 04:19 PM
bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhh you have to be kidding CBN is your source :lmao:

ok bias...

i'll play ball


Part of the problem here is that many school districts across the country look to The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) when shaping guidelines. Those guidelines may make many parents shudder. They include teaching children 5-8 years old about homosexuality, names for body parts and specific details about how a baby is made... is authors opinion and still no facts that OBAMA said he support SIECUS


The Obama campaign sent out the SIECUS guidelines to MSNBC when asked about this issue last year. The problem confronting the Obama campaign on this issue is that while he may not be for any of the more intense language contained in the SIECUS guidelines, he does support age-appropriate sex ed for kindergartners and the polling suggests voters are uncomfortable with that...where is the MSNBC info on this and in what regards was it issued and used.

you need some better sources then CBN :lmao:

Tracy
09-17-2008, 05:05 PM
There are many experts who tell parents to teach children about penis and vagina from day one. So, to me, the age at which this happens is a moot point. It should always be something that is taught. It's just all in the way you tell it. There is a right way to talk about masturbation, FOR EXAMPLE, to a 5 year old and a wrong way. I'm not an expert on any of this, so I can't tell you the right or wrong way.

Whether anyone here or anywhere else in the US thinks it's not the job of the gov't to raise your children, the unfortunate fact is that in the long run....they do in many ways. Your child spends more time in school awake then they do in their parents house during school age years. So, if it's not the gov'ts job to teach children, why don't we all home school??? Do any of you in favor of the statement "It's not the government's job to raise our children" home school your children or did your parents home school you?

There are TONS of CHILDREN having babies every day. Who pays for them for the most part? The gov't....our tax dollars. In the end it is in our country's best interest to teach sex education in schools if for nothing but financial reasons. I don't feel like looking up how many under age children have their own kids, but I know it's a ridiculous and rising number. What we are doing currently isn't working.

There isn't a law that makes parenting classes a must. Not every parent deserves to have children, but we don't regulate that here until it's to late here in our country (meaning until someone reports child abuse, etc.). Do we just not worry about the kids who have crappy parents because it's not our problem or do we do something about it? The answer is that we do something about it as a country. That's why we have free lunch and welfare and guardians ad litem and so on.

If we start talking about sex issues earlier, they become less taboo later. I think it's better to at least start talking about sex in a proper manner (meaning in a way a 5 year old can understand) because children are absorbing the most information during this time. I wonder how European numbers compare to the US numbers when it comes to teen pregnancy. Sexuality is less of an issue there. It'd at least be interesting to compare.

Another option is to have parents have to sign a waiver if they don't ant their children to have sex education. They did that in my school. That way it is an option and not a forced issue. Personally, I'd like to have a little bit of both going on. That way sex is less taboo all around. If teachers talk about it AND parents talk about it....then it's all out in the open.

In the end, I think the age at which sex ed happens is a lame point. Sex ed is good, it's just all in the way you present it. It needs to be in an age appropriate manner. Trust me, kids want to know where babies come from pretty early. Telling them "from the stork" isn't that great of an idea if you ask me. I'd rather my kid know that babies come from a vagina and a penis. That way when they come across a vagina or penis they KNOW they can get pregnant and are educated enough to make a good decision.

Deke
09-17-2008, 05:10 PM
^Reps Tracy. Very well put and I agree whole-heatedly (again, this is how my parents approached the subject)

Tracy
09-17-2008, 05:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_incidence_of_teenage_pregnancy

The U.K, which has the highest teenage birth rate in Europe (20 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2002[3]), also has a higher rate of abortion than most European countries. 80% of young Britons reported engaging in sexual intercourse while still in their teens, although a half of those under 16, and one-third of those between 16 to 19, said they did not use a form of contraception during their first encounter. Less than 10% of British teen mothers are married and a relatively high proportion of them are under the age of 16. Adolescent pregnancy is viewed as a matter of concern by both the British government and the British press.

In contrast, the Netherlands has a low rate of births and abortions among teenagers (5 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2002[3]). Compared to countries with higher teenage birth rates, the Dutch have a higher average age at first intercourse and increased levels of contraceptive use (including the "double Dutch" method of using both a hormonal contraception method and a condom).

Nordic countries, such as Denmark and Sweden, also have low rates of teenage birth (both have 7 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2002[3]), but their abortion rates are higher than those of the Netherlands.

In some countries, such as Italy and Spain, the low rate of adolescent pregnancy may be attributed to traditional values and social stigmatization. These countries also have low overall fertility rates. Portugal, however, has a relatively high percentage of teenage pregnancy (17 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2002[3]).

######################################

The teenage birth rate in United States was 53 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2002[3], the highest in the developed world.[7] If all pregnancies, including those which end in abortion or miscarriage, are taken into account, then the total rate in 2000 was 75.4 pregnancies per 1,000 girls. Nevada and the District of Columbia have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the U.S., while North Dakota has the lowest. [8] 95% of teenage pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended; approximately one third end in abortion, one third end in spontaneous miscarriage, and one third will continue their pregnancy and keep their baby.[9]

However, the trend is decreasing: in 1990, the birth rate was 61.8, and the pregnancy rate 116.9 per thousand. This decline has manifested across all racial groups, although teenagers of African-American and Hispanic descent retain a higher rate, in comparison to that of European-Americans and Asian-Americans. The Guttmacher Institute attributed about 25% of the decline to abstinence and 75% to the effective use of contraceptives.[8]

Within the United States teen pregnancy is often brought up in political discourse. The goal to limit teen pregnancy is shared by Republicans and Democrats, though avenues of reduction are usually different. Many Democrats cite teen pregnancy as proof of the continuing need for access to birth control and abortion, while Republicans often cite a need for returning to conservative values.

metalman
09-17-2008, 05:37 PM
So, if it's not the gov'ts job to teach children, why don't we all home school??? Do any of you in favor of the statement "It's not the government's job to raise our children" home school your children or did your parents home school you?

.

Yes. :goodjob:

And home/private/schooled kids generally test higher then public educated kids too. But, be that as it may, even homeschooled kids get pregnant.

Its not the lack of sexual information that is an issue today...(although perhaps it may have been for you in some way, if so I am truly sorry)....information abounds. There is overwhelming amounts of it..and misinformation as well of course. Nothing much is 'taboo' anymore. You can say and do most anything...and show the same.

I keep hearing the same tired approach to MORAL DECISION making....'we need more sex education'....that is the plan thats been in effect since the 60s sexual revolution...and the effect of this increasing flow of information and discussion has served only to INCREASE teen pregnancy.

Looking to sex education is looking the wrong direction. Plainly speaking more sex education does nothing. Its not a lack of knowlege of how a penis, vagina, and uterus work that keep teen pregnancy rates high, its the lack of good judgement in decision making. The lack of parents spending time with their kids. People think their kids need more toys...they dont...they need more of their parents attention, time, and good influence. Thats not something you can legislate or teach in school...the shool can only support what the parent teaches. Even when executed perfectly some will still make a mistake or bad decision.

There is a breakdown in the family, a decline in human values and morals,...but NO amount of teaching, legislation, or government programs will ever correct it. The notion that the government can step in and 'fix' this is a scary one....thats far worse then what we face now.

redrumracer
09-17-2008, 05:52 PM
sex ed in school should only reaffirm what responsible parents teach there kids about. my parents had that discussion with me ever since i can remember(which is all the way back in kindergarten)

Tracy
09-17-2008, 05:53 PM
Yes. :goodjob:

And home/private/schooled kids generally test higher then public educated kids too. But, be that as it may, even homeschooled kids get pregnant.

Its not the lack of sexual information that is an issue today...(although perhaps it may have been for you in some way, if so I am truly sorry)....information abounds. There is overwhelming amounts of it..and misinformation as well of course. Nothing much is 'taboo' anymore. You can say and do most anything...and show the same.

I keep hearing the same tired approach to MORAL DECISION making....'we need more sex education'....that is the plan thats been in effect since the 60s sexual revolution...and the effect of this increasing flow of information and discussion has served only to INCREASE teen pregnancy.

Looking to sex education is looking the wrong direction. Plainly speaking more sex education does nothing. Its not a lack of knowlege of how a penis, vagina, and uterus work that keep teen pregnancy rates high, its the lack of good judgement in decision making. The lack of parents spending time with their kids. People think their kids need more toys...they dont...they need more of their parents attention, time, and good influence. Thats not something you can legislate or teach in school...the shool can only support what the parent teaches. Even when executed perfectly some will still make a mistake or bad decision.

There is a breakdown in the family, a decline in human values and morals,...but NO amount of teaching, legislation, or government programs will ever correct it. The notion that the government can step in and 'fix' this is a scary one....thats far worse then what we face now.

No one needs to be sorry for me (not just you but everyone). Just wanted to say that. I didn't put it out there for pitty. I put it out there to make a point :)

I'm not disputing for one second that we, as Americans, have an issue "at home". There is ABSOLUTELY a decline in family values. At this point it is out of control and like a revolving door. With teen pregnancy numbers as high as they are, it can only get worse. Teen parents aren't going to become better parents and increase the family values...that's obvious. But the fact is that there are A LOT of teen parents out there and SOMETHING needs to be done about it and I don't see a problem with kids learning about sex and related issues. My point is that it's not the kids fault that their parents don't have values. They shouldn't be left out in the cold because they were dealt a bad hand and their parents aren't equipped to handle a measly sex talk. They still deserve a certain level of education on the basics. The facts of life are one of those basics, true?

We are a humanitarian nation for the most part. We aren't supposed to let our children be abused or neglected or be homeless or hungry and we don't let that happen per say. We don't just throw up or hands and say "it's not my problem" because it's the parents job to have family values and pass them on to their children. We don't say, f.uck the kids, let them starve! No, we have welfare for that. The same type of philosophy should go for sex ed...even though it's not as extreme of an issue (kind of) as say child neglect or being homeless.

By the way, you are lucky to have been home schooled and if you can pass that on to your children, more power to ya! The fact is that most parents now a days have to work to support their family. Not sure if you noticed, but especially now, our economy is a little screwed. I don't think many are in the position, in the state of the world currently, to stay home to school their children. I don't think that's a moral issue. Just because YOU can stay home and school your children doesn't make ME a bad mom because I can't or won't :) BUT I did ask :) The point of me asking that is because we sort of do let the gov't "raise" our children in that respect.

Tracy
09-17-2008, 05:53 PM
sex ed in school should only reaffirm what responsible parents teach there kids about. my parents had that discussion with me ever since i can remember(which is all the way back in kindergarten)

Good point.

Tracy
09-17-2008, 06:02 PM
Wait, see here is where one of the flaws to this idea lies. You really think there are NO "bible thumpers" as you call them in those same school boards? Now, what would you or Paul think if the wise ole school board decided that a religion based sex ed program was best? That's my point. Sex ed. should be something taught at HOME where the viewpoint of the parents is the only one that matters until the children reach the age of majority.

So just like Metalman said, why would you trust the gov't.....same gov't who can't handle infinitely EASIER tasks w/o screwing the pooch royally.....to teach YOUR child? :thinking:




It would be almost impossible to discuss abortion w/o having some type of discussion about religious belief and morals. It's not possible. What are you going to teach children? What an abortion LOOKS like? HOW it's done? Outside of that, its all about CHOICE and that CHOICE is ALWAYS made based on religious beliefs and morals. So that's like giving you the price of a car that's for sale, yet NOT tell you anything else about it. You'd be left with MORE questions than answers, right? So, how are you going to explain abortion, masturbation, contraception?......all of which have a REALLY BIG Religious conotation associated with it because most people use their strong beliefs as a basis for their stance on any one of those three.



Human Papillomavirus is something that 5 yr olds have about a 0% chance of getting, transmitting, or even knowing how to spell. So how is that going to help in preventing it's transmission?

5-8yr olds should know where their "no touch" zones are and how male/female differs, but to discuss HPV, abortion, contraceptives, masturbation, and the like is inappropriate for that age group. Teach them what's acceptable and not acceptable touching. Teach them to respect each other's privates. Teach them that girls are girls and boys are boys. But you'll have the same result trying to teach them about HPV as you would trying to teach them the Theory of Relativity.


So, you're not really disputing that AGE at which children should start receiving education, you have a problem with certain topics and how they relate to age. I can go with that to a degree. Maybe the don't need to know what HPV is, but masturbation is a natural thing and I wouldn't have a problem with the topic being presented in the correct manner. Masturbation can start pretty young. At least mentioning that it is a natural thing that happens to everyone should be ok. I mean you don't need to go into technique, but it is, in fact, a pretty natural thing and I see no problem with an appropriate discussion about it with children.

metalman
09-17-2008, 06:33 PM
Again...if we try to tie sex ed to pregnancy rates it just doesnt add up. the two are not really connected. Years ago there was no sex ed, preg rates were FAR lower.
Now we have all kinds of sexual info, preg rates are far higher. Do the math.

Teaching kids at school about buttsex, masturbation, or any other sexual subject is: 1. dabbling in areas where only parents should be 2. completely inefective in helping kids avoid preg issues and bad sexual decisions.

Now, if you want to argue that quality of education is related to preg statistics and the like...thats correct. But thats general overall education, not sex ed.
People with high self esteem, who are goal oriented, who have close family ties to a loving nurturing family, who are active in educational pursuits, and who have moral instruction in the home are FAR less likely to make bad decisions sexually. The balance of that can be called education.

redrumracer
09-17-2008, 06:43 PM
also abstinence doesnt work, inform the children of the consequences of there actions and also how to prevent pregnancies and disease.. Sex shouldnt be shunned, it is a natural thing.

metalman
09-17-2008, 06:45 PM
also abstinence doesnt work, .

Well it works quite well for the people who practice it. :D

But, as a singular teaching method in schools, youre right, it fails.

Tracy
09-17-2008, 07:06 PM
Again...if we try to tie sex ed to pregnancy rates it just doesnt add up. the two are not really connected. Years ago there was no sex ed, preg rates were FAR lower.
Now we have all kinds of sexual info, preg rates are far higher. Do the math.

Teaching kids at school about buttsex, masturbation, or any other sexual subject is: 1. dabbling in areas where only parents should be 2. completely inefective in helping kids avoid preg issues and bad sexual decisions.

Now, if you want to argue that quality of education is related to preg statistics and the like...thats correct. But thats general overall education, not sex ed.
People with high self esteem, who are goal oriented, who have close family ties to a loving nurturing family, who are active in educational pursuits, and who have moral instruction in the home are FAR less likely to make bad decisions sexually. The balance of that can be called education.


Years ago sex wasn't all over TV and in advertisements and so on. Now it's everywhere you turn and in your face. You could try to connect a ton of factors to teen pregnancy rates. EVERYTHING has changed since sex ed was introduced in the 60's (was it?). It could be anything. It could be that we haven't started with sex ed early enough ;) and by the time kids get it, it's already too late. YOU NEVER KNOW :) I'm still not arguing that some things would be BETTER taught by parents, but that doesn't always happen in every child's home.

Do you agree that sex is everywhere, in your face in our country? Do you agree that sex ed should be taught by SOMEONE? If the answer is yes (which by reading what you already posted, the answer is yes) then sex ed isn't REALLY the point you are arguing-you are just arguing WHO should teach it. Which brings us back to my point that not all kids have competent parents :) and kids should learn about what they are seeing all over TV and being conditioned to think is ok from someone. SOMEONE needs to teach kids about sex. So, great! You have impeccable family values and have the time and ability to home school your ace kids. What about Jim Bob's kids down the street? F.uck them? Let them get pregnant? So that you have to pay for their kids via taxes? OR maybe we can throw sex ed to the wall and see if it sticks?

OR like I mentioned before, have a waiver. So, metalheads kids are raised right and never watch TV long enough to hear that teen queen on Nickelodeon, Jamie Lynn Spears, got preggers and had a baby OMGZ. Then you have the option of checking the "no thanks" box. This option just goes a long with the attitude that school is reaffirming what kids should be taught at home.

metalman
09-17-2008, 07:23 PM
All those media factors are part of the sexual revolution I have already cited.

You have missed the point...I dont want the gubment teaching Jim Bobs kids or ANYONES about issues of morality. Nor do I want the gubment or any citizen committee deciding who is a 'competent' parent and who isnt...when it comes to those issues. Period.

Allowing such government interference, asking for it, or doing so is FAR more of a danger to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness then ANY taxation problem faced us by unwanted pregnancy, or social issue from bad sexual decisions. Period.

If you think Jim Bobs kids are 'victims'..wait till you see the victims governmental 'parenting' will create.

You also missed out on the fact that sexual ed in schools has about ZERO to do with preggo rates. So adding/changing the ciriculum to include masturbation will add up to zero as well.

Sadly, this "give us a King to tell us what to do" mentality has plagued humans for centuries.

Total_Blender
09-17-2008, 07:44 PM
People with high self esteem, who are goal oriented, who have close family ties to a loving nurturing family, who are active in educational pursuits, and who have moral instruction in the home are FAR less likely to make bad decisions sexually. The balance of that can be called education.

http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/03/09/01/687-3504039.standalone.prod_affiliate.7.jpg

Depending on your source 5 to 7 percent of teens get preggers. I know when I was in highschool a lot of the hot (and persumably sexually active) chicks dropped out between 9th and 10th grade. And most of my friends from HS had kids by accident shortly after. Lots of broken homes and single parents.

A lot of people don't get moral instruction in the home. Or they choose to follow their parents examples rather than their parents guidance. I'm a case study of that. Every story my dad ever told me when I was a kid started with "down at the beer joint". My dad drank heavily for 15 years before I was born. And when I was born everyone in my family says he quit cold turkey just fine. And this was the person telling me not to drink.:screwy: His warnings about the dangers of alcoholism and legal/health problems were stern, but his example was "drinking is lots of fun and you can quit anytime you want" :crazy:

Total_Blender
09-17-2008, 07:57 PM
Do you agree that sex is everywhere, in your face in our country? Do you agree that sex ed should be taught by SOMEONE? If the answer is yes (which by reading what you already posted, the answer is yes) then sex ed isn't REALLY the point you are arguing-you are just arguing WHO should teach it. .

Good point, kids learn about this stuff through the media at very early ages. I mean when I was a kid we went to teh skating rink and jammed to MC Hammer. Nowadays kids are getting exposed to Britney Spears and the like, and theres so much sex on the internet that even with the best firewall young'uns can get exposed to bad stuff. Hell, here on IA you are only a click on a banner ad away from it. You just can't keep kids from being exposed. They are going to find out earlier and they are probably not going to find out from their parents the way things are now.

Jaimecbr900
09-17-2008, 10:20 PM
While I normally agree with Tracy, I'm not seeing eye-to-eye on this one.

Just WHO is going to determine what that "age appropriate" curriculum is going to be? Now, what are you going to do when you don't agree with the chosen course of study? Opt out? Ok, so how did that help? Flip the coin....what about those that don't care enough to get involved and just take a laisse faire attitude and LET the school be the source of "sex ed"? Parents will get a false sense of security and breathe a sigh of relief they didn't have to have "the talk" because they think the school has it covered.

BTW, since when does sex ed. prevent pregnancies? I'm willing to bet that 99% of everyone reading this thread HAD sex ed in school. I'm also willing to bet that 99.9% STILL had unprotected sex, had many "scares", possibly even had children, contracted diseases, or a combination of those. Do you think that by talking about it a few years earlier it would have changed anything? Like metalman said, the information is definetly out there and in large volumes, but that's by itself is NOT changing anything.

Why not instead of talking to 5 yr olds about sex do we not sit 17 yr olds, who are about to get out into the "real" world, and teach them how to have basic life skills? Why don't we talk to our kids and explain that Britney and Lynnn Spears are NOT role models of any kind? Why not teach those soon to be adults the importance of good credit and prudent money saving practices? Why can't we teach those kids the real tangible results of studies showing that active parenting is far better than passive parenting? Instead of Home Ec, give teens classes on how to choose stocks to invest in? Instead of having ping pong as an elective, make HS students volunteer at their local hospital so they can SEE first hand what the dangers of unprotected sex is or maybe make them appreciate their own health? I could do this all day.

Bottomline is that when schools step into roles that SHOULD be filled by PARENTS, be it discipline, attention, or even sex ed.....the children will fail miserably because schools weren't ever designed to be a large nanny agency. We already don't have a choice as to which school our children can attend, unless you want to pay for it twice, yet you guys want that same institution try and teach your children about sex? I rather they spend their limited resources in teaching my children those things they are designed to. If they want to teach sex ed to my 14 yr old, fine. If they want to teach my 5 yr old sex ed.....ummmm, :no: , and that goes double if you want to tell him that masturbation is "ok" as long as its in a nice private place. Sorry, I just don't agree with that.

Z33_kid
09-17-2008, 10:36 PM
to each to their own has its goods and bads

Total_Blender
09-17-2008, 11:52 PM
Its not so much that I want the schools to teach this stuff to my own kids... its that I want them to teach it to other peoples kids. If parents have a lassiez-faire attitude about teaching their kids about sex because "the school is doing it" then they probably wouldn't have taught it to their kids properly in the first place.

An article I cited earlier describes case studies of sex-ed programs. The one that was the most successful was one that presented science-based information combined with service learning where students are taken to maternity wards, clinics, etc. This program was the most successful but it was also the most expensive.

stephen
09-18-2008, 06:07 AM
everyone here has a valid point, but there are still some things that're being overlooked. teaching sex education in schools to a child of ANY AGE is a far cry from allowing the government to impose on your life. in all fairness...if a 5yr old learns about sex, homosexuality, masturbation, etc., what's the worse that can happen...the kid comes home and ask mommy/daddy about it? how is that so awful? abortion...ok, well that's pushing it, but i didn't read that in his plan anyway.

my last relationship was with a chick who had 2 girls...5 & 9. the 5yr old would say some of the most "age inappropriate" things sometimes, and i'd have to ask her "where'd you hear that at?" these weren't things we were teaching her at home, they were words she heard at school. while play fighting, she told her sister she was going to kick her in the nuts....said there was a "gay girl" in her class...came home crying because a little boy said he was her boyfriend. she wasn't a bad kid AT ALL, she was just repeating things that she had heard from other kids. she really had no idea what she was saying. me and her mother sat them both down and actually started talking to them about body parts, sex, homosexuals, boyfriends/girlfriends and babies from that day on.

like i said, parents do have a responsibility to teach their children...BUT they're not always going to be the first to INTRODUCE things to them.

let's take sex out of the equation, and use cuss words instead. if a 5yr old goes to school, and cusses like a sailor, would the school be wrong for punishing him/her? aren't there parents who allow their young children to cuss...so wouldn't the school be crossing that "moral" boundary?

i'm sure ANY parent would prefer to have their child come home and say "we learned about sex at school..." as opposed to hearing your child outside playing and saying something they got from another student or off the latest pop song.

metalman
09-18-2008, 09:32 AM
As for cursing in school...there is no comparison to be made.
Obviously order must be maintained in school environments so rules against cursing or with regard to proper attire etc in school are entirely appropriate...to maintain a proper aptmosphere for learning.

As already indicated, more technical sexual information to 5 yr olds does nothing.
Info alone doesnt work. It must be accompanied by personal moral values
instilled by parents over a lifetime.

I'll give two examples very close to me:

Person A - grew up with no sex ed. Nothing "technical" mentioned or discussed by parents or teachers other then general moral principles and abstinence until marriage. Person A learned about sex in the library, on playground, from older kids, from porn/trashy books etc Person A engaged in sexual activity at a very young age, but always with safety in mind, no scares, no diseases, no pregnancies etc. Great care was exhibited by this person to avoid those pitfalls. Even after marriage person A exhibited self control in family planning.

Person B - grew up in home where any/all sexual information was freely shared, rec'd sex ed in school, was free to discuss any/all aspects of human sexuality, masturbation, gay sex yada yada...in the home, and did so whenever any question arose. Was taught moral principles surrounding sexual activity and given encouragement to be responsible, in depth discussion of birth control and materials made available. Person B became an unwed parent at 16.

My mother was a state social worker. In that role she was heavily involved with troubled teenagers, unwanted pregancies, etc She did home studies to determine when/if children should be taken from their parents. She also did the same with regard to adoptions and fostering. Buts mostly she always tried to keep children WITH their own parents by assisting them. She would often say "Usually a poor parent is still better then a state parent"

I learned a long time ago from observing my mother in her role ...its not the lack of info (although there are isolated cases) in general its genetics and/or the lack of nurturing and/or desire for attention resulting from disconnected busy parents, a broken home, drugs/alcohol, abuse, molestation, an overall decline of values/priorities within the home etc etc etc that generally contribute to a persons promiscuity and/or risky sexual behavior.

In addition, sometimes even those with every advantage give in to urges and make costly mistakes. On the flip side sometimes those with NO advantages make all the right decisions.

Bottom line....The info given in public kindergarten has about ZERO to do with any of this...and looking to address sexual social issues in that area is a waste of time...it will change nothing...EXCEPT to intrude where parents should be.
Its looking in the wrong area.

Total_Blender
09-18-2008, 10:49 AM
I recognize that theres an OMG SHOCK FACTOR when people use "age 5" but you guys have to understand that no local school board is going to approve of giving the full curriculum to 5 year olds. If they did they would get reamed with lawsuits from parents.

When it boils down to it the technical aspects of sex-ed are really just basic biology. Part of why our kids are suffering in the area of science is that science is demonized by the religious freaks on the Right. Should schools pretend to teens that this stuff doesn't exist? If kids ask questions should schools ignore them or worse lie to them?

Some reading material for you guys:

http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html


“Both comprehensive sex education and abstinence only programs delay the onset of sexual activity. However, only comprehensive sex education is effective in protecting adolescents from pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses at first intercourse and during later sexual activity. In contrast, scientifically sound studies of abstinence only programs show an unintended consequence of unprotected sex at first intercourse and during later sexual activity. In this way, abstinence only programs increase the risk of these adolescents for pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses, including HIV/AIDS,” said psychologist Maureen Lyon, Ph.D., Chair of the committee that produced the report. [/qoute]


http://www.thebody.com/content/art32960.html

[quote=article]
Federally funded abstinence-only programs in the U.S. must have as their "exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity," and must teach "that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity" and that "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects," among other requirements. These programs also are prohibited from discussing contraception or STD prevention technologies, such as condoms, except in reference to their failure rates

Bush administration censors information about condoms and their effectiveness from US gov't documents. .PDF full-text:

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/hivaids/condoms1204/condoms1204.pdf

Scientific Accuracy in Policy Making - a report that accuses the Bush administration of "suppression and distortion of research findings" on a level "unprecedented in the history of the United States." .PDF full-text:

http://ucsusa.wsm.ga3.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/RSI_final_fullreport_1.pdf

metalman
09-18-2008, 11:53 AM
When it boils down to it the technical aspects of sex-ed are really just basic biology. Part of why our kids are suffering in the area of science is that science is demonized by the religious freaks on the Right. Should schools pretend to teens that this stuff doesn't exist? If kids ask questions should schools ignore them or worse lie to them?



Neither the religious extremist freaks on the right nor the tree hugging earth worshiping wackadoos on the left should be the measure of whats taught in public schools. Science should be taught and include all manner of it including evolutionary theory and creation science. Anything less is unbalanced to say the least. Thats the problem, each side wants to push their own agenda...the evolutionists dont want creation taught, and the creationists dont want evolution taught.
Both are off in left field...in terms of study and education. The purpose of such is to investigate all possibilities as far as reasonably possible. In truth...those who feel they know what is right have nothing to fear from investigating that which they feel is not. Truth is never really changed by falsehoods, but discovered through open minded investigation.

In terms of sexual education...there really is no shortage of information in general. I agree with you however that the efforts of some to censor info on condoms/birth control etc is like the above discussion...UNBALANCED.
That movement I might add is largely fostered by the roman catholic church.
Dumb protestants and other sheep blindly follow as it fits their own agenda.
Idiots like Pat Robertson and the like fan the flames.

But, I do believe that in spite of these 'do-gooders' kids generally know plenty about condoms/birth control etc etc etc. I also agree that public abstinence only programs are ineffective, unrealistic, and unbalanced as well. The whole balanced sexual-science-biology picture should be given to kids..at the appropriate age and time. The abstinence only teaching and/or the "bang anyone as long as youre protected" opposite MORAL DECISION instruction should be left to parents. Thats THEIR duty.

Tracy
09-18-2008, 06:06 PM
All those media factors are part of the sexual revolution I have already cited.

You have missed the point...I dont want the gubment teaching Jim Bobs kids or ANYONES about issues of morality. Nor do I want the gubment or any citizen committee deciding who is a 'competent' parent and who isnt...when it comes to those issues. Period.

Allowing such government interference, asking for it, or doing so is FAR more of a danger to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness then ANY taxation problem faced us by unwanted pregnancy, or social issue from bad sexual decisions. Period.

If you think Jim Bobs kids are 'victims'..wait till you see the victims governmental 'parenting' will create.

You also missed out on the fact that sexual ed in schools has about ZERO to do with preggo rates. So adding/changing the ciriculum to include masturbation will add up to zero as well.

Sadly, this "give us a King to tell us what to do" mentality has plagued humans for centuries.


I'll admit I didn't have to time to read the entire thread and I just skimmed. I didn't see where you got your statistics that you keep alluding to. I also don't have time to look them up myself. I'll just take you at your word when you say things like "sexual ed in schools has about ZERO to do with preggo rates". Note the word ABOUT. I don't think any credible source would use the word about when referring to a fact or statistic :) but then again I could have just missed where it was cited.

Let's just leave simple. Sex is part of life and biology. So, is masturbation. I don't see it as being an issue if presented in the right manner :)

flak_monkey
09-18-2008, 06:26 PM
When my ex's little brother came home from school claiming the curriculum told him he could contract the HIV virus through saliva, I knew that something was terribly wrong. I double checked the handout. It was there, plain as day. Kids NEED sex ed in schools. Anybody who thinks differently should visit the GIVE center, alternative schools, to see that kids are ****ing earlier and earlier every year. If we don't give them information, they will not be equipped to be careful and safe in their decisions. Abstinence only education is wrought with disinformation, scare tactics, and often times outright lies to coerce children into not having sex. I think that this type of miseducation should be criminalized.

stephen
09-18-2008, 09:10 PM
As for cursing in school...there is no comparison to be made.
Obviously order must be maintained in school environments so rules against cursing or with regard to proper attire etc in school are entirely appropriate...to maintain a proper aptmosphere for learning.

As already indicated, more technical sexual information to 5 yr olds does nothing.
Info alone doesnt work. It must be accompanied by personal moral values
instilled by parents over a lifetime.

I'll give two examples very close to me:

Person A - grew up with no sex ed. Nothing "technical" mentioned or discussed by parents or teachers other then general moral principles and abstinence until marriage. Person A learned about sex in the library, on playground, from older kids, from porn/trashy books etc Person A engaged in sexual activity at a very young age, but always with safety in mind, no scares, no diseases, no pregnancies etc. Great care was exhibited by this person to avoid those pitfalls. Even after marriage person A exhibited self control in family planning.

Person B - grew up in home where any/all sexual information was freely shared, rec'd sex ed in school, was free to discuss any/all aspects of human sexuality, masturbation, gay sex yada yada...in the home, and did so whenever any question arose. Was taught moral principles surrounding sexual activity and given encouragement to be responsible, in depth discussion of birth control and materials made available. Person B became an unwed parent at 16.

My mother was a state social worker. In that role she was heavily involved with troubled teenagers, unwanted pregancies, etc She did home studies to determine when/if children should be taken from their parents. She also did the same with regard to adoptions and fostering. Buts mostly she always tried to keep children WITH their own parents by assisting them. She would often say "Usually a poor parent is still better then a state parent"

I learned a long time ago from observing my mother in her role ...its not the lack of info (although there are isolated cases) in general its genetics and/or the lack of nurturing and/or desire for attention resulting from disconnected busy parents, a broken home, drugs/alcohol, abuse, molestation, an overall decline of values/priorities within the home etc etc etc that generally contribute to a persons promiscuity and/or risky sexual behavior.

In addition, sometimes even those with every advantage give in to urges and make costly mistakes. On the flip side sometimes those with NO advantages make all the right decisions.

Bottom line....The info given in public kindergarten has about ZERO to do with any of this...and looking to address sexual social issues in that area is a waste of time...it will change nothing...EXCEPT to intrude where parents should be.
Its looking in the wrong area.

we could go back and forth all day with examples to prove our point, but you never told me WHAT HARM CAN IT DO? did person B have sexual awarness education at the age of 5? maybe that was the problem.

i clearly understand your point, but you're looking too far out on the deep end. making a comparison between primary school curriculum and having to government take a child away from a poor home are two totally different scenarios. much like schools have to maintain order (in reference to cussing, dress, etc.), the government has to maintain order in our society, hence, the principles behind your mother's job.

like i said before, NO PARENT can control what their child is introduced, nor do they have some sort of timeline or graph which represents "when "X" will happen." honestly, it's better to be safe than sorry...that's all i'm saying. if early sex education can help to prevent a child from being molested, raped, taken advantage of, etc., then why not allow it?

your mentality refelcts that of a perfect world, with perfect individuals...which in all fairness, is something we all desire. regardless, we still have to take things for what they truly are. there are parents out there who don't spend enough time with their children. there are children out there being molested/raped by someone in their own home. there are children out there who are born with STDs. there are children out there who contract STDs from being "taken advantage of."

jaime said something earlier about schools teaching our kids how to balance checkbooks, sending them to after curricular programs, etc. why is it OK to leave that responsibility up to the school, but feel like when it comes to sex education, that's the line in the sand? ALL SCHOOL BASED CURRICULUMS revolve around LIFE, and introductions to LIFE EXPERIENCES.

there is a right and a wrong way to introduce sex education to young children, as tracy stated before. once again, if we pay a little more attention to obama's plan, and not tear it apart just for the sake of an argument, then maybe you'll say that you're correct in your thinking, but on a totally different track.

IMPORTchic
09-18-2008, 10:33 PM
I am not sure of what to believe off of here. Nor am I going to take the time to read it all. Plain and simple though this is how I feel. :D

We HAVE to have SEX-ED in schools! Age approproate of course! THe problem is how to depict what is appropriate seeing that some children are around things at home inappropriate at such young ages and bring that to the public schools and influence other children that dont know the first thing. Kids are learning more and more now days at a younger age. People are so corrupted now days and there are so many parents not worth a shizzit that its not even funny. It really does all start at home. Parents are going to have to start stepping up and teaching their children their own morals and family values before the hellians at school do it with their young nieve brains. I dont know that my family EVER talked to me about sex. I got most of it from school and the sex ed classes I was in. THose were so crucial. Thank God I was not corrupted like some get. I was brought up in a good family(in a sense of not being taught bad, just not good sex ed) with a good set of friends so we kinda stayed away from the I hate to say it but "trashies" that knew and did all the bad things! We had a girl in the 7th grade in my class that was pregnant. I remember she was taken and home schooled seeing that it was a big to do with her being so young. Girls are getting pregnant younger and younger now days. Its sad. The schools do have to step up and do something seeing thats where that our youth spend the majority of their time. Its a major influence on them at school with peer pressure and just simply being nieve.

Like I said though. Some of that I read did not seem age appropriate. Teaching a child things like that in kindergarden is CRAZY! Those things stated are by far age appropriate. Things such as babies come from womens tummies is about the extent that should be. Maybe parents could be given some kind of information booklet to sign to either allow or deny their child to the teachings at an older age say 5th grade. :2cents:There is always going to be some kind of loop in the system and problem, but something has to be done. If not we are going to have a bunch of 13yr olds running around 8 months pregnant and STDS rampent. There is no way to prevent even highschoolers from having sex. So might as well teach them all there is to know to be safe about it while still pushing abstinence to the fullest. No 13, 14, or 15 yr old is old enough to have sex although some at that time feel that they are mature and grown enough. Espcially when there are way more experienced older guys stepping in for a piece!!! What ever happened to girls losing their virginity to their first loves? :( Now its losing it to the hot guy 3 grades up at a party they snuck to!!

I know this probably sounded like a bunch of immature young minded jumble to some and is going to be criticized by many like everything else is on IA, but ohhh well. I am going on 1 and 1/2 hours of sleep since 8am and really do have a point in there in that blonde headed brain of mine. :rolleyes: Point is.....teaching masturbation and sex at any age under say.....12?....is BS!!! This makes me question who to vote for. I am totally lost.:thinking:

metalman
09-19-2008, 12:04 PM
i clearly understand your point, .........

if we pay a little more attention to obama's plan, and not tear it apart just for the sake of an argument....

Actually I am not quite sure you do understand my point.

1. We already have sex ed, I have no issue with general science/sex ed being given to students in age appropriate manner. I have no issue with information regarding STDs and the potential hazards of sexual behavior being given. Knowlege is good.

2. Before there was sex ed teen preg rates/stds etc were far lower, now with it theyre higher YOU DO THE MATH, after a point adding more sex ed doesnt work, people ALREADY know all about sex...and are DOING IT obviously. Teen preg rates are increasing....NOT due to any lack of sex/birth control info but as a result of the lack of MORAL INSTRUCTION from parents, misguided prioities, the idolization of sheithead role models by our youth, the lack of parenting, and the general moral decay of society. For those needing 'cited statistics' those facts alone should suffice.

3. Parents should quit asking the state to do THEIR JOB, which is THEIR DUTY as parents....that being the moral instuction of their children governed by their own individual concience and belief. The state should NEVER interfere with that process. Do so is far more dangerous then any situation we now face in this area. I would argue that one of the primary reasons we have these issues is that parents ARE relying on the state to do their job. That IS the problem to begin with. Increasing that state involvement will only increase the problems. We need increased parenting. The state CANNOT do the parents job. Its not possible, nor is it in keeping with the ideals of our constitution and great nation.


4. The ridiculous notion that increasing sex ed info or adding masturbation facts etc will somehow decrease preg rates or stds is absurd! Who in the hell doesnt ALREADY know about bean wacking or rocking the man in the boat??? Who doesnt know about condoms or other birth control? Perhaps they exist in some corner of the world but I have NEVER met such a person, even as a child back when sex was rarely spoken of. Are there really chicks here that got pregnant just because they didnt know they could diddle their own clit???
Are there guys here that got their GF preg all because they never heard of wanking the one eyed trouser snake??? I mean really! Thats BS. :rolleyes:
All of this is 'adding additional info' is looking in the WRONG direction for answers to our sexual problems. Redundancy of info will not help us! Face it, kids ALREADY know all about sex, adding more redundant tech data really will accomplish nothing. Its not that I mind if my kids know about masturbation etc...they ALREADY know...and so do ALL their friends!!!
If thats really Obamas plan then he IS delusional. Do you really think kids acting out sexually dont know about masturbation?? Condoms?? Etc? Even kids in my "ancient" generation knew all about that stuff in lower elementary grades...and we had no sex ed in my school. In 2008 I find the notion that kids are 'unknowing' to be ridiculous. If anything, they probably know too much! lol..what they lack is an ability to make proper decisions with that knowlege. My mothers experience as a social worker mirrors all of this as well. Yes, more education is needed, a better quality education in a general sense...a better sense of PRIORITY for life decisions, a better example put forth by parents, parents more involved in PARENTING.

5. I have not torn apart Obamaramas plan...except inadvertantly perhaps.. :D as he has socialist ideas. I havent even studied his plan, as there are far more important issues to me concerning him, however, I have addressed some general principles on this interesting topic that I do have slight life experience in.

Jaimecbr900
09-19-2008, 02:57 PM
Very good post Metalman. :goodjob:


You know what would probably go further in curbing unwanted teen pregnancies????? Substitute sex ed class with time served in a maternity ward of a hospital helping deliver an actual live baby.....or spend some tangible time working with social workers who visit with abandoned children.....or maybe make each student spend an entire week taking care of a newborn.....that may just go much further towards curbing teen pregnancies than explaining to them how to masturbate or put on a condom. As Metalman said, they likely already know how to do that anyway. The real hurdle is not that they "know" but in reality is getting them to apply that. Many parents go straight to the doctor's office when they find out their sweet innocent teen has BEEN having sex to put them on birth control as if pregnancy is the only issue. A vast majority of those same parents then just wipe their hands as if their job is done. Why is it so hard to sit sweet little Sally down and asking her, "hey, why are you having sex with little Joey?"...or maybe, "hey, there are other ways to show affection at your age like _______".....or "hey, the best birth control is the pill.....when you hold it really tight right here between your KNEES.....:2up: :D ".

You know what the gov't CAN do instead of this????? They can stand up and say, "If you have kids, then YOU take care of them because I'm not going to". The more that people know that they have a safety net, the more risks they take. Guys don't worry about getting a girl pregnant when they think the GIRL is going to take care of the problem if it happens. Girls don't worry about getting pregnant, when they know mommy is going to help them take care of little Johnny. Parents don't worry about their kids getting pregnant when they know the gov't is going to be there to give them WIC, food stamps, and welfare. It's a never ending cycle.

Know what I mean?

stephen
09-19-2008, 03:11 PM
Actually I am not quite sure you do understand my point.

i'm quite sure i do...


1. We already have sex ed, I have no issue with general science/sex ed being given to students in age appropriate manner. I have no issue with information regarding STDs and the potential hazards of sexual behavior being given. Knowlege is good.

we both agree here.


2. Before there was sex ed teen preg rates/stds etc were far lower, now with it theyre higher YOU DO THE MATH, after a point adding more sex ed doesnt work, people ALREADY know all about sex...and are DOING IT obviously. Teen preg rates are increasing....NOT due to any lack of sex/birth control info but as a result of the lack of MORAL INSTRUCTION from parents, misguided prioities, the idolization of sheithead role models by our youth, the lack of parenting, and the general moral decay of society. For those needing 'cited statistics' those facts alone should suffice.

i've done the math, YOU haven't completed the equation. pregnancy rates aren't higher due to sex education...that's just a ridiculous assumption. the primary reason is the looseness of media, and other technology based entertainment. think about it...i'm not sure how old you are, but when i was in primary school (late 80s - early 90s) we didn't have programs like ADULT SWIM on cartoon based networks. you had to watch ren & stimpy/bevis & butthead/etc. on MTV. even on NICKELODEON, when did we see "clarissa explains it all" or the kids from "hey dude" making out? you watch high school musical or hannah montana, you're bound to find sexual innuedos. pop music wasn't nearly as vulgar as it is today with both lyrics and videos. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO TEEN PREGNANCY...not sexual education.


3. Parents should quit asking the state to do THEIR JOB, which is THEIR DUTY as parents....that being the moral instuction of their children governed by their own individual concience and belief. The state should NEVER interfere with that process. Do so is far more dangerous then any situation we now face in this area. I would argue that one of the primary reasons we have these issues is that parents ARE relying on the state to do their job. That IS the problem to begin with. Increasing that state involvement will only increase the problems. We need increased parenting. The state CANNOT do the parents job. Its not possible, nor is it in keeping with the ideals of our constitution and great nation.

making a child AWARE of the bodies, and attempting to protect them from predators and the like, is far from a moral instruction. I DO AGREE that 5yr olds don't need to know about abortion, and even masturbation. they do need to understand that boys have a penis, and girls have a vagina. they need to understand that babies don't fall out of the sky. they need to understand that IT IS NOT OK for people to touch their private parts. the government is still ALLOWING it to be a moral/freedom of choice decision, by giving parents the RIGHT to choose whether they want their child to take a part in the curriculum.


4. The ridiculous notion that increasing sex ed info or adding masturbation facts etc will somehow decrease preg rates or stds is absurd! Who in the hell doesnt ALREADY know about bean wacking or rocking the man in the boat??? Who doesnt know about condoms or other birth control? Perhaps they exist in some corner of the world but I have NEVER met such a person, even as a child back when sex was rarely spoken of. Are there really chicks here that got pregnant just because they didnt know they could diddle their own clit???
Are there guys here that got their GF preg all because they never heard of wanking the one eyed trouser snake??? I mean really! Thats BS. :rolleyes:
All of this is 'adding additional info' is looking in the WRONG direction for answers to our sexual problems. Redundancy of info will not help us! Face it, kids ALREADY know all about sex, adding more redundant tech data really will accomplish nothing. Its not that I mind if my kids know about masturbation etc...they ALREADY know...and so do ALL their friends!!!
If thats really Obamas plan then he IS delusional. Do you really think kids acting out sexually dont know about masturbation?? Condoms?? Etc? Even kids in my "ancient" generation knew all about that stuff in lower elementary grades...and we had no sex ed in my school. In 2008 I find the notion that kids are 'unknowing' to be ridiculous. If anything, they probably know too much! lol..what they lack is an ability to make proper decisions with that knowlege. My mothers experience as a social worker mirrors all of this as well. Yes, more education is needed, a better quality education in a general sense...a better sense of PRIORITY for life decisions, a better example put forth by parents, parents more involved in PARENTING.

if you don't believe that sexual awareness/eduction will not help to curb the statistics....all i can tell you is look at other countries like the Netherlands. it's true that it's not THE ONLY SOLUTION, but it's still a step. with your ideology, then programs like Planned Parenthood are useless. once again, you cannot compare your mothers job to this situation...it just doesn't work.


5. I have not torn apart Obamaramas plan...except inadvertantly perhaps.. :D as he has socialist ideas. I havent even studied his plan, as there are far more important issues to me concerning him, however, I have addressed some general principles on this interesting topic that I do have slight life experience in.

well, if you don't know obama's plan, then you can't properly debate on it. a lot of what you're saying, although true, has little to do with his plan. his first words to the plan in regards to kindergarten kids, has more to do with protecting children from those who try to take advantage of them by making them more aware. teaching children that their private parts are just that...PRIVATE PARTS, is a far cry from the government attempting to take control of our lives.

metalman
09-19-2008, 03:47 PM
i'm quite sure i do...


Uhhh no I am afraid you dont. Your post below shows that clearly.





i've done the math, YOU haven't completed the equation. pregnancy rates aren't higher due to sex education...that's just a ridiculous assumption. the primary reason is the looseness of media, and other technology based entertainment. think about it...i'm not sure how old you are, but when i was in primary school (late 80s - early 90s) we didn't have programs like ADULT SWIM on cartoon based networks. you had to watch ren & stimpy/bevis & butthead/etc. on MTV. even on NICKELODEON, when did we see "clarissa explains it all" or the kids from "hey dude" making out? you watch high school musical or hannah montana, you're bound to find sexual innuedos. pop music wasn't nearly as vulgar as it is today with both lyrics and videos. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO TEEN PREGNANCY...not sexual education.

Here's where you demonstrate you clearly dont understand what I have said.

I never said sexual education increased preg rates. I have already indicated all these (media etc) things you cite are part of the sexual revolution...and the part of problem....which is NOT a lack of information, but lack of responsible parenting and subsequent decision making.

The increase of sex education IS ALREADY IN PLACE....and KNOWLEGE ABOUNDS. There is no shortage of it. That in itself is completely ineffective in addressing the problem.....the increasing preg/std rates show that. There is NO lack of info. You would have to live in a cave to really believe otherwise....and even then you'd figure out how to wack your bean....nature itself takes care of that!! If you need futher instructions you must wear a helmet and ride a very short bus to school.

Everyone is already AWARE!! Not futher awareness is needed. What IS needed is responsible PARENTING and NO state program can provide that.


they need to understand that babies don't fall out of the sky. they need to understand that IT IS NOT OK for people to touch their private parts

Thats the thing...people ALREADY DO understand this. You continue to look in the wrong direction for answers. Perhaps youve been listening to Obama bullsheit I dont know. :rolleyes:




once again, you cannot compare your mothers job to this situation...it just doesn't work.

Nothin personal, but thats about the dumbest thing you could post. :rolleyes: Her job, and the others like it, have everything to do with this situation. Their duties are often a result of this situation and part and parcel of it. Their undertanding of what ails youth. the amount of typical sexual education rec'd, and the causes/effects of sexual decisions made likely exceed yours considerably. :goodjob:



well, if you don't know obama's plan, then you can't properly debate on it.

Well I dont have to study Obamas stupidity to figure out the truth.
I dont learn truth from studying fiction. :goodjob:
Nor do I need study his plans to carry on an itelligent conversation/debate here. But thanks.

Jaimecbr900
09-19-2008, 03:56 PM
i'm quite sure i do...

No, I really don't think you do (see below).


i've done the math, YOU haven't completed the equation. pregnancy rates aren't higher due to sex education...that's just a ridiculous assumption. the primary reason is the looseness of media, and other technology based entertainment. think about it...i'm not sure how old you are, but when i was in primary school (late 80s - early 90s) we didn't have programs like ADULT SWIM on cartoon based networks. you had to watch ren & stimpy/bevis & butthead/etc. on MTV. even on NICKELODEON, when did we see "clarissa explains it all" or the kids from "hey dude" making out? you watch high school musical or hannah montana, you're bound to find sexual innuedos. pop music wasn't nearly as vulgar as it is today with both lyrics and videos. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO TEEN PREGNANCY...not sexual education.

Your math is to a totally different equation and that is why he said you don't understand what he's saying. I'll let Metalman correct me if I'm wrong, but here is his equation:

A. BEFORE when there was little to no sex ed= LESS teen preg.
B. NOW when there is a ton MORE sex ed/info= MORE teen preg.
C. AMOUNT of info= no LESS teen preg.
D. CONCLUSION= INFO alone is certainly NOT the answer.

Right or wrong Metalman?

He's not saying that sex ed CAUSES more teen preg. He's saying you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. ;)

metalman
09-19-2008, 04:00 PM
No, I really don't think you do (see below).



Your math is to a totally different equation and that is why he said you don't understand what he's saying. I'll let Metalman correct me if I'm wrong, but here is his equation:

A. BEFORE when there was little to no sex ed= LESS teen preg.
B. NOW when there is a ton MORE sex ed/info= MORE teen preg.
C. AMOUNT of info= no LESS teen preg.
D. CONCLUSION= INFO alone is certainly NOT the answer.



Hey, someone read and understood! :D :goodjob:

Thanks Jamie.

blaknoize
09-19-2008, 05:06 PM
i'm confused. I had sex ed in 3rd and 6th grade. How isit not already in the system. I had sex ed in 4th. No idea what my age was, but I only assume I was a very smal child. Then... I had a break till 9th and 10th grade. I'm also wondering the same.

Plus I dont see why its really an issue. Our parent sure didnt care for sex ed nor paid attention. Back in the hott wett 70's bitchs and dudes just had sex cuz it was fun (totally dependant upon when u were born), this can fall to the 60's as we ALL KNOW were even hotter and wetter and even sticky. Drugs and sex.

I had that class very young, didnt remember anything of it or even cared (I loved my HotWheels) but I was still taught it.

So... please tell me, why is this stretching to so many pages?

daskinni1
09-19-2008, 07:25 PM
Teaching abstinence is definitely failing our kids. One need only to look at the teen pregnancy rate in GA... 95 preggos per 1000 teens. Thats pushing one in ten.

Teen pregnancy makes both parents far less likely to get a highschool education (not to mention college), making us less economically competitive as a nation due to a work force that is becoming less skilled.

Food for thought - outcomes of teen pregnancies as of 9/2006:

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/fb_ATSRH/chart2.gif

Source:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html


that is the truth.
as a nation we to many people cant hold thee own already.
but now kids still under there parents cant finish school because
they have kid to raise
no one is finishing school and no one can get a good job and more
people are goind broke.
sorry i cant spel 2 well right now.

alpine_aw11
09-19-2008, 08:46 PM
I support it, but I think sex ed is pretty much useless when it's all said and done. Can't slow down the number one human desire. Yea, kids should be wrapping up and what not, but they're never going to stop having sex.

stephen
09-19-2008, 09:11 PM
ok...now that jaime explained your math to me, i understand. the fact of the matter is, NEITHER OF YOU still understands what this whole thing is really about. since i'm the one who's on the "obama bullsh.it wagon" let's see how you two compare to the "mccain bullsh.it wagon."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html

if you don't care to read it...then i'll give you EXTENDED cliffs:

-much like the two of you...mccain accuses obama's plan as "COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION" for kindergarten students, which would be morally wrong.

-obama supported an "AGE AND DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE" sexual education course.

-a quote from the article itself, "Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators." this is TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN PREVENTING TEEN PREGNANCY....THE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT.

-ANOTHER QUOTE FROM OBAMA HIMSELF “I have a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean,” Mr. Obama said in 2004. “And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age.”

-*IMPORTANT* Under the Illinois proposal, “medically accurate” education about more complicated topics, including intercourse, contraception and homosexuality, would have been reserved for older students in higher grades.

-my last quote from the article, "The instruction the bill required was comprehensive in that it called for a curriculum that went from kindergarten and through high school, not in the sense that kindergarteners would have been fully exposed to the entire gamut of sex-related issues."

in reference to teen pregnancy...the truth of the matter is, DOING SOMETHING is better than DOING NOTHING. we can all sit here and say that the current sex education has done nothing to curb teen pregnancy...but what more can we do? the fact of the matter is, THE PROBLEM EXIST, AND ALL TAX PAYERS HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. the government is offering ASSISTANCE, not control. i was wrong in saying that metalman's mom's job has nothing to do with the issue, it kind of came out the wrong way. what i really meant was, unlike her job, this curriculum/program is meant to educate children, the future...unlike social services involvement in families, this program give the parents the option to allow their child to take part FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY SEE FIT. having social services remove a child from a "broken home" does not give a parent OR child that right...it's either "fu.ck up...we take them...do good...you keep them."

with this information...you still believe that this plan is designed for the GOBMENT to take over your family???

Total_Blender
09-19-2008, 09:17 PM
Some of you guys are starting to sound like my Grandpa:

Back in my day we had to walk 5 miles in the snow to get to school... :blah: :cheers:

Stephen is right about the media, I remember that back in the late 80's early '90's you could see a change in music. All of a sudden everything got really risque. Back when I was a kid the popular rappers were Run DMC and the Fat Boys. Now you have kids growing up with much more explicit stuff.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. But if there are a bunch of other horses already drinking at the trough and shouting "drink" and telling him he's thirsty... he's probably gonna drink.:2cents:

And like has been said before countless times, not every kid has the benefit of good parenting. A lot of the parents out there just park their kids in front of the TV and leave it at that.

We have to stop seeing the issue of parenting through the rose colored glasses of 2 parent homes and Christianized morality. We need to change our model of family values to include the alternative family structures and changing household economic conditions that most families are racked with nowadays. It may not be a pretty picture, but we need to adapt our education system to fix real problems by addressing their real causes instead of holding to an idealized "Leave it to Beaver" kind of fantasy world.:goodjob:

metalman
09-19-2008, 10:40 PM
Clearly judging from some posts here some have no real grasp on the points made here by myself or Jamie.

One more time....

1. There already is sexual education/information...TONS of it in fact.

2. There is NO shortage of information! Its EVERYWHERE!!!!

3. Adding MORE information about masturbation, homosexuality, alternative lifestyles etc etc etc will do NOTHING. Everyone ALREADY KNOWS!!!!...yet idiots keep screaming for more education and 'awareness'....all the while ignoring of the real issue.

4. The school system will NEVER be able to parent your children..EVER!

5. Msg for all....Stop being a selfish lazy piece of sheit and raise your own children, thats your DUTY. Its in YOUR best interest. Its in ALL our best interest.

6. Dont expect the government or school system to do YOUR job or the job of your lazy neighbor...its NOT possible no matter what socialist idiots like Obama (or others) tell you.

7. I could really give two sheits about Obamarama or McCain. I am not here to support either. This subject extends so far beyond either one of them it isnt funny.

8. I am NOT opposed to general information to assist children against predators or general sexual education in an age appropriate manner. No one here is that I can tell.

9. If anyone lives in a "Leave it To Beaver world" its those that think their public school system will be able to effectively teach morals, decision making, and do their parenting for them...OR PROTECT their children...and that adding more sex ed is 'better then doing nothing'. Thats pie in the sky rationalization, not reality.

10. My mothers job in social work not only included removal of kids from abuse etc and assistance with the results of parents failiings, and the bad decisions of young folk, but to TEACH, EDUCATE, and DEMONSTRATE a proper example...and to give folks in those situations (teen pregnancy, abuse etc etc)a hand up, showing them how to help themselves.
It also involved educating and assisting with information and resources (whether sexual or otherwise) for those who were yet to have a problem. It had everything to do with this topic. If you dont get that youre clueless!!
She would be the first to tell you of the innefectiveness of sex ed in schools, and how more wont help. She would also be the first to tell you that real PARENTING is the only answer.


11. If you think some big media "change" that sparked the current 'state of sexuality' came in the 80's and 90's youre WAY out of touch with reaility.. :lmfao: ..or too young to know the difference. It came way before that. I know...because I lived through alot of it. :goodjob:

12. Stop blaming the media/music/environment/society for the failings of parents to properly teach & protect their children...thats YOUR job as parents...not theirs. :rolleyes:

Bottom line...add all the sex/lifestyle info in school studies you want....it will fail. That approach has failed all along and will continue to do so.

Info without parenting = fail
Info without morals and decision making skills= fail

ONLY if/when parents decide to stop putting their job off onto others and go back to doing it again will you see any REAL change. In the meantime, youre left with the Obama type "change"...which really isnt, but just more of the same ineffective pie in the sky crap. :yes:

stephen
09-20-2008, 12:02 AM
metalman...i never said you and jaime were wrong. i've told the both of you that i agree with you on MANY points. you too have the ideal mentality of what a proper parent should be. this entire thing started heading in the wrong direction, and that's the only issue ANYONE who has argued with you has tried to suggest. i re-read this entire thread, and BOTH OF YOU agreed that sexual awareness was an important thing for young children to learn, specifically, to protect them from sexual predators/abuse. the only thing that you two were hung up on was that "obama wants to teach 5yr olds about homosexuals, masturbation, and the scientifics of sex" which just ISN'T TRUE.

totalblender couldn't have said it any better...in a perfect world, ALL PARENTS would take care of their responsibilites and do as much as it takes to steer their children in the right direction, and protect them. the sad reality is, this world ain't perfect. we have social programs and institutions in this world just for that reason. regardless of what the government has to offer to help better OUR SOCIETY, there will always be those who will take advantage of it, BUT there will also be a countless number of those who will benefit. to take away from and de-moralize people who TRULY NEED and benefit from government programs just isn't fair.

last point...when you have 2 individuals (obama/biden) who SHOW THEIR MORAL VALUES WITHIN THEIR OWN FAMILIES (specifically sex education/awareness since that's what this topic is all about), who want to give the "less fortunate" (for lack of a better term) and opportunity to build those same values; VERSUS 2 individuals whose judgement on the situation is flawed (mccain cheated on his wife WHILE SHE WAS SICK, then married the mistress and palin has pregnant CHILD)...then it's clear which candidates prove they have the right ideology on the situation.

i almost forgot...metalman, i hope you didn't think i was taking "cheap shots" at your mother's career. you initiated it as an example (an example with a heavy negative connotation in it), and i rode with it to make my point. from what i gather, her line of work needs more individuals like her...people who have compassion for other human beings and are capable of raising intelligent children.

Total_Blender
09-20-2008, 12:09 AM
The research is there that the more intensive programs work, I cited it you can read it or not. What you guys keep spouting off about "its the parents' fault" has little to do with methods that have been proven to work in independent scientific studies. If you believe in this stuff so strongly why not argue your points to the APA (http://www.apa.org/) (American Psychological Association, 150,000 members), the AMA (http://www.ama-assn.org/) (American Medical Association, 266,000 members), or the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/) (Center for disease Control and Prevention, 15,000 employees)? Both of these organizations are on board with the more intensive sex-ed programs. Maybe you could also argue your points to the 127,433,494 citizens of Japan and the 16,408,557 citizens of the Netherlands where these programs are working well. I'm sure they'd love to hear the American viewpoint on why our failing programs are better than their successful ones.:goodjob:

Keeping sex-ed the way it is (or worse, further emphasisn abstinence-only and further disregarding science) will only make the problems we have now with sexual predation, teen preganacy and the spread of STD's worse.

Kids need something to guide them and show them that the image of sex that they are shown in the media is not how it really is. And most kids parents aren't giving them that. The parents should be providing the major role but countless studies show that they aren't. So while you guys sit on your high horses and talk about the way that you raise your own kids, nothing is done to help the situations of children who are not lucky enough to have parents who will explain this stuff to them.



Substitute sex ed class with time served in a maternity ward of a hospital helping deliver an actual live baby.....or spend some tangible time working with social workers who visit with abandoned children.....or maybe make each student spend an entire week taking care of a newborn.....that may just go much further towards curbing teen pregnancies than explaining to them how to masturbate or put on a condom. As Metalman said, they likely already know how to do that anyway. The real hurdle is not that they "know" but in reality is getting them to apply that.

The programs I am talking about do just that... a combination of science based information and real world experience by taking kids out and showing them the consequences of bad decisions. Unfortunately these programs are the most expensive and given the current shift of cutting "socialist pork spending programs" it is unlikely that any legislation of this type will pass unless we get more progressives in congress/White House. Note that I didn't say democrat :goodjob:

stephen
09-20-2008, 12:20 AM
^that's exactly the point

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Total_Blender again.

i'll get you later!

Nex
09-20-2008, 08:15 AM
Sex education in schools...?


palin's children obviously need this, i know many of you have stated her daughter is an adult at 17 :rolleyes:; i'm 28 and barely feel like an adult no 17 yr old is an adult. n hmm im pretty sure there are 17 yr olds with millions or billions out there pretty much "feel" like they are a adult. When a person feels as if they have success in a financial life i guess they would "feel" they are adults. Olson twins are a bad example LOL let's exclude them tho LOL.

Tracy
09-22-2008, 11:59 AM
While I normally agree with Tracy, I'm not seeing eye-to-eye on this one.

Just WHO is going to determine what that "age appropriate" curriculum is going to be? Now, what are you going to do when you don't agree with the chosen course of study? Opt out? Ok, so how did that help? Flip the coin....what about those that don't care enough to get involved and just take a laisse faire attitude and LET the school be the source of "sex ed"? Parents will get a false sense of security and breathe a sigh of relief they didn't have to have "the talk" because they think the school has it covered.

BTW, since when does sex ed. prevent pregnancies? I'm willing to bet that 99% of everyone reading this thread HAD sex ed in school. I'm also willing to bet that 99.9% STILL had unprotected sex, had many "scares", possibly even had children, contracted diseases, or a combination of those. Do you think that by talking about it a few years earlier it would have changed anything? Like metalman said, the information is definetly out there and in large volumes, but that's by itself is NOT changing anything.

Why not instead of talking to 5 yr olds about sex do we not sit 17 yr olds, who are about to get out into the "real" world, and teach them how to have basic life skills? Why don't we talk to our kids and explain that Britney and Lynnn Spears are NOT role models of any kind? Why not teach those soon to be adults the importance of good credit and prudent money saving practices? Why can't we teach those kids the real tangible results of studies showing that active parenting is far better than passive parenting? Instead of Home Ec, give teens classes on how to choose stocks to invest in? Instead of having ping pong as an elective, make HS students volunteer at their local hospital so they can SEE first hand what the dangers of unprotected sex is or maybe make them appreciate their own health? I could do this all day.

Bottomline is that when schools step into roles that SHOULD be filled by PARENTS, be it discipline, attention, or even sex ed.....the children will fail miserably because schools weren't ever designed to be a large nanny agency. We already don't have a choice as to which school our children can attend, unless you want to pay for it twice, yet you guys want that same institution try and teach your children about sex? I rather they spend their limited resources in teaching my children those things they are designed to. If they want to teach sex ed to my 14 yr old, fine. If they want to teach my 5 yr old sex ed.....ummmm, :no: , and that goes double if you want to tell him that masturbation is "ok" as long as its in a nice private place. Sorry, I just don't agree with that.


Freaking out about the EDUCATION of sex and related topics is silly. EDUCATION is what schools are for. EDUCATION is what you were meant to get at school....by definition. No one is asking the schools to be accountable for the students actions. That's a nanny service. We are talking about education ONLY still. Who decides what is taught? Us, as in the people. The same folks who decide whether or not things like evolution or creation should be taught.

Let me ask this question, who gets to decide what part of history is taught? Because I can tell you that I got almost all A's in school (until junior year). I had no idea about the things that were done to Native Americans until I was in college. I knew nothing about slavery. I also thought that Americans were adored by the rest of the world. This is all until I finally got my butt into college when I was 23. Imagine how stupid and naive I felt when September 11th happened and I began to learn how many people actually hated us. Imagine how ignorant I felt when I took a Native American Lit class and found out about the small pox blankets. Imagine how sad I felt when I found out how slavery happened in real life. Who decided that I was only going to learn the American History that was fed to me? Same concept to me.

You know, sex isn't a bad thing. It's only a bad thing if not handled properly. That's what sex ed is about in my eyes. Freaking out about it makes the kids more curious if you ask me.

Like I mentioned before, maybe those of you who are freaking out about sex ed in schools should think about home schooling your kids. Who made that the government's job? For arguments sake, that's what parents are for. The gov't isn't a nanny service, so why do we send our kids there for 8 hours a day?

And yes I think that maybe if sex ed was taught earlier we may not have had as many issues with all mentioned. It's called socialization. The more you talk about it and educate on it, the less of a big deal it becomes. I posted some actual stats (which I haven't seen any others in my skimming) and I believe it was Brazil? that attributed the low teen pregnancy rates to customs and socialization. Makes perfect sense to me :)

Jaimecbr900
09-22-2008, 03:07 PM
The research is there that the more intensive programs work, I cited it you can read it or not. What you guys keep spouting off about "its the parents' fault" has little to do with methods that have been proven to work in independent scientific studies. If you believe in this stuff so strongly why not argue your points to the APA (http://www.apa.org/) (American Psychological Association, 150,000 members), the AMA (http://www.ama-assn.org/) (American Medical Association, 266,000 members), or the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/) (Center for disease Control and Prevention, 15,000 employees)? Both of these organizations are on board with the more intensive sex-ed programs. Maybe you could also argue your points to the 127,433,494 citizens of Japan and the 16,408,557 citizens of the Netherlands where these programs are working well. I'm sure they'd love to hear the American viewpoint on why our failing programs are better than their successful ones.:goodjob:

Dude, you really need to learn to read better before embarking on a point making expedition. Seriously.

I never said to "take out" sex ed, or that it was "bad" to have at all. I don't get where you got that out of my very clear and direct posts. You can ask anyone around here and they will tell you that I'm VERY clear with my posts, so I don't understand how you've tried to turn around both mine and Metalman's post to something totally off what we've tried to say.

If you or anyone else can't see how TRYING and utterly failing to "teach" sex ed to a 5yr old., which has always been MY POINT all along, is NEVER going to do anything.....then you guys are not using logic nor reality.

OK, let's use your logic for a minute:

Let's start teaching 5 yr olds Physics. Let's TRY and explain to them how particles that they don't even KNOW EXIST work. Let's teach them how Inertia works. Let's explain the Theory of Relativity to them. Maybe teach them Newton's law. Why not? I mean I know that I'm far from "stupid", yet I can't remember my kindergarden teacher's name let alone what she was TRYING to teach me back then. Why not then teach them complicated theories and equations while we're at it? Maybe it's because THEY'RE NOT AT A LEVEL WHERE THEIR EDUCATION, LIFE EXPERIENCES, NOR MATURITY has taken them yet so TRYING to teach is totally useless UNLESS you teach them at the proper order and level where THEY CAN understand. THAT IS MY POINT. I CAN'T MAKE IT ANY MORE CLEARER THAN THAT. Teach all the sex ed you want TO TEENS AND PRE-TEENS. 5-9 yr olds will neither comprehend, absorb, nor retain "sex ed". Furthermore, teaching a CHILD that age what a vagina is certainly will NOT do a single thing towards curbing TEEN pregnancies.

If yall want to continue to argue that point with me, save it because there is no logical thought process that makes that equation work.


Keeping sex-ed the way it is (or worse, further emphasisn abstinence-only and further disregarding science) will only make the problems we have now with sexual predation, teen preganacy and the spread of STD's worse.

I'll bite.....How?


Kids need something to guide them and show them that the image of sex that they are shown in the media is not how it really is.

I agree, but it's called P-A-R-E-N-T(S).



And most kids parents aren't giving them that.

Again, I'll bite......where is the data showing this?



So while you guys sit on your high horses and talk about the way that you raise your own kids, nothing is done to help the situations of children who are not lucky enough to have parents who will explain this stuff to them.

Spoken like someone who has no kids of his own, so it's EASY for you be a Monday morning quarterback....:rolleyes:

Come talk when YOU have children of your own. Come tell me THEN that YOU are too busy or too big a chicken to discuss sex with your OWN CHILDREN so you want to be sure their SCHOOL does YOUR job for you. When you do, I'll call you a loser and a failure to your face. When you don't, THEN you will understand where I'm coming from.

Do you still not get it? :rolleyes:



The programs I am talking about do just that... a combination of science based information and real world experience by taking kids out and showing them the consequences of bad decisions. Unfortunately these programs are the most expensive and given the current shift of cutting "socialist pork spending programs" it is unlikely that any legislation of this type will pass unless we get more progressives in congress/White House. Note that I didn't say democrat :goodjob:

Just where do you think the funding for these bright new ideas of ADDING curriculum is going to come from???? Think about it. So you're telling me that you'd rather that money go towards more "books", slide show presentations, and teachers rather than spent on some truly revolutionary programs like I mentioned????? Okie dokie. Talk about beating the same dead horse. Sex ed being taught by school as the sole primary source of sexual education is what has got us to where we are today. So instead of changing the way we look at sex ed, we're just going to throw MORE of the same at it......just earlier.......ummm, say what???? Kidding me right?

Tracy
09-23-2008, 09:07 AM
Clearly judging from some posts here some have no real grasp on the points made here by myself or Jamie.

One more time....

1. There already is sexual education/information...TONS of it in fact.

2. There is NO shortage of information! Its EVERYWHERE!!!!

3. Adding MORE information about masturbation, homosexuality, alternative lifestyles etc etc etc will do NOTHING. Everyone ALREADY KNOWS!!!!...yet idiots keep screaming for more education and 'awareness'....all the while ignoring of the real issue.

4. The school system will NEVER be able to parent your children..EVER!

5. Msg for all....Stop being a selfish lazy piece of sheit and raise your own children, thats your DUTY. Its in YOUR best interest. Its in ALL our best interest.

6. Dont expect the government or school system to do YOUR job or the job of your lazy neighbor...its NOT possible no matter what socialist idiots like Obama (or others) tell you.

7. I could really give two sheits about Obamarama or McCain. I am not here to support either. This subject extends so far beyond either one of them it isnt funny.

8. I am NOT opposed to general information to assist children against predators or general sexual education in an age appropriate manner. No one here is that I can tell.

9. If anyone lives in a "Leave it To Beaver world" its those that think their public school system will be able to effectively teach morals, decision making, and do their parenting for them...OR PROTECT their children...and that adding more sex ed is 'better then doing nothing'. Thats pie in the sky rationalization, not reality.

10. My mothers job in social work not only included removal of kids from abuse etc and assistance with the results of parents failiings, and the bad decisions of young folk, but to TEACH, EDUCATE, and DEMONSTRATE a proper example...and to give folks in those situations (teen pregnancy, abuse etc etc)a hand up, showing them how to help themselves.
It also involved educating and assisting with information and resources (whether sexual or otherwise) for those who were yet to have a problem. It had everything to do with this topic. If you dont get that youre clueless!!
She would be the first to tell you of the innefectiveness of sex ed in schools, and how more wont help. She would also be the first to tell you that real PARENTING is the only answer.


11. If you think some big media "change" that sparked the current 'state of sexuality' came in the 80's and 90's youre WAY out of touch with reaility.. :lmfao: ..or too young to know the difference. It came way before that. I know...because I lived through alot of it. :goodjob:

12. Stop blaming the media/music/environment/society for the failings of parents to properly teach & protect their children...thats YOUR job as parents...not theirs. :rolleyes:

Bottom line...add all the sex/lifestyle info in school studies you want....it will fail. That approach has failed all along and will continue to do so.

Info without parenting = fail
Info without morals and decision making skills= fail

ONLY if/when parents decide to stop putting their job off onto others and go back to doing it again will you see any REAL change. In the meantime, youre left with the Obama type "change"...which really isnt, but just more of the same ineffective pie in the sky crap. :yes:


You are REALLY upset :) there isn't the need to call people out of their names to get your point across. Not everyone is an "idiot" because they have a different view than you. Just saying.

metalman
09-23-2008, 09:27 AM
You are REALLY upset :) there isn't the need to call people out of their names to get your point across. Not everyone is an "idiot" because they have a different view than you. Just saying.

I am not upset at all. :)
Obviously you dont know me nor have you read carefully what I have said....which seems to be a common problem in this thread with regard to posts by others as well.
The 'idiots' I refered to are those who while ignoring the real issue, keep calling for more education and awareness when those things ALREADY exist.
The 'idiots' are those that actually think kindergarten & school curriculum can be a subtitute for PARENTING. I make no apology for speaking the truth.
More of this same old approach is much like pissing in the ocean, it will not change the water level. It hasnt up to now, and it wont in the future. :no:

Tracy
09-23-2008, 09:35 AM
I am not upset at all. :)
Obviously you dont know me nor have you read carefully what I have said....which seems to be a common problem in this thread with regard to posts by others as well.
The 'idiots' I refered to are those who while ignoring the real issue, keep calling for more education and awareness when those things ALREADY exist.
The 'idiots' are those that actually think kindergarten & school curriculum can be a subtitute for PARENTING. I make no apology for speaking the truth.
More of this same old approach is much like pissing in the ocean, it will not change the water level. It hasnt up to now, and it wont in the future. :no:


I read and understand what you said. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. You are calling anyone who doesn't agree with you an idiot (or anyone you don't agree with). If you want to get your point across, it's best that you don't use name calling. I didn't ask you to apologize for your views and I don't call you, or anyone for that matter, any sort of name for having them :) Your VIEWS aren't necessarily "the truth". So, get off the soap box and try to learn how to have a nice debate with people who don't agree with you. :cheers:

Total_Blender
09-24-2008, 02:04 PM
Just where do you think the funding for these bright new ideas of ADDING curriculum is going to come from???? Think about it. So you're telling me that you'd rather that money go towards more "books", slide show presentations, and teachers rather than spent on some truly revolutionary programs like I mentioned????? Okie dokie. Talk about beating the same dead horse. Sex ed being taught by school as the sole primary source of sexual education is what has got us to where we are today. So instead of changing the way we look at sex ed, we're just going to throw MORE of the same at it......just earlier.......ummm, say what???? Kidding me right?

I think you are reading my posts just to criticize them and you aren't really getting the dorifto of what I'm saying. I agree with you that a program that gets teens out of the classroom and gives them real world experience is a good thing. In fact I provided a link to a study that discussed such programs and their rates of success. What I meant was that these programs cost money and our current political climate is all bout budget cuts.Gov. Perdue just passed an emergency 6% budget cut across the board a couple months ago in addition to the cuts passed in the current session. So while I support such programs, I recognize getting them implemented will be a challenge. And such programs should be an addition to a comprehansive curriculum program based on real science rather than a substitute for it.

As for the rest of your arguments, I have said that I don't support the teaching of the full curricula to all grades and that there should be an age apporpriate progression to be determined by state local authorities (who are elected and answer to the parents). I also support the option of parents to opt their kids out of the programs without penalty. So in the first half of your latest post you just put a bunch of words in my mouth that aren't necessarily mine.

On any of your talking points from your last post you can defer to research and studies I have already posted.

This argument could continue but the horse is already glue.:goodjob:

http://eggheadmarketing.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/glue.jpg