Sex education in schools...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admin

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.

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.

ABC Article for Paul

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy

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:

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/video...ns=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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ran

ABC Article for Paul

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...-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?

Quote:

---

"'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. "'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.'"

---

Quote:

---

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 he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalman

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admin

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalman

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobbyFresh

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalman

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.

"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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admin

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

---

So do the Dems...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fcman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Total_Blender

"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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admin

... 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalman

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalman

: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. ;)

bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhh you have to be kidding CBN is your source :lmao:

ok bias...

i'll play ball

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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:

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.

^Reps Tracy. Very well put and I agree whole-heatedly (again, this is how my parents approached the subject)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...nage_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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy

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.

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redrumracer

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

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.

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.

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.