Spoiler tag added for potentially NSFW link in the OP.
Try toggling the CC button in YouTube.
Yes, the leg hair … on the woman…
Now I understand that they wanted to use attractive models, but this is setting an unlikely standard … they could use a more modest model, so as to not tempt girls into overeating and taking hormones in order to keep up with her leg hair !
OP asks: “Could this sex-ed video work in the US classroom?” and a moderator sees the need to spoiler it for being “potentially” NSFW. I think that answers the OP’s question right there.
Must be strange to be brought up in a country where the surgical modification of male infants is taken as such a given. :dubious:
Oddly, I remember the highly progressive liberal state of GEORGIA teaching us all that (albeit without the live video of unclothed people, but there were explicit diagrams) in sex ed in 4th grade, unobtrusively covered as “the reproductive system” in the class called “Health” which was human biology. (Other chapters were “the skeletal system”, “the muscular system”, “the digestive system”, “the circulatory system”, “the nervous system”, etc).
Circa: 1969; Lowndes County, Valdosta GA, public school.
Sexes not segregated. Material presented by our regular teacher, in a somewhat stuffy & prissy manner, treating it all like any other subject matter, scowling at the kids who were snickering etc.
If that video is so darn good, then show it to your own kids.
Yes I said it. Why in the heck do people expect the schools to teach every sex ed program some outsider comes up with?
Here’s a thought. If you seriously think this is important and the kids are just going to become freaks if they dont see it, then first - show it to members of your own family and/or second - ask around to parents you know, get the kids together, and show it to them.
Seriously, we parents are not dumb and each and every parent has their own set of values. When the time comes when we need to give our kids “the talk” we look around and find books, videos, programs, etc… that have the information we want according to our own values.
BTW, At my sons school they showed the movie “Boy to Man fourth edition” LINK which they gave each of us a download to preview and I was ok with it. Why? It was a good video where young men talk about things in a voice boys would feel comfortable with. And partly because back in 1978 we also saw “Boy to Man” probably the first edition.
Some people in this thread seem to be unaware that hair grows on women.
The hair was pretty enlightening to me, actually. I always assumed I was frighteningly and ridiculously hirsute, but I don’t have nearly the amount of thick hair that that woman had on her thighs. It was actually kind of a relief.
Obviously we know that hair grows on women. The hair on the woman’s upper thighs seemed a bit excessive. That’s all.
I had to go back and look again, as I hadn’t noticed. I’ve seen women with more and women with less. This woman didn’t seem unusual to me.
I don’t think the board’s registration agreement standard for what qualifies as NSFW is really the same thing as what would or should be considered appropriate in a controlled learning environment.
I tend to agree with others who have said there are parts of the US where that would work, and parts where it absolutely would not. Thinking back to my school days, I’m guessing that the video would have caused the usual level of immature jokes, but would have overall been pretty educational.
That it isn’t appropriate for American public schools. We aren’t big on nudity and the backlash it would cause with parents, the amount of snickering, would overwhelm any sort of good it would do. Its good, I’d show it to my kids (who are past puberty), but my kids have gotten pretty explicit sex ed - not from public schools.
And that is the real reason we can’t do something like this. In America everyone’s opinion is worthy of being treated as fact, and everyone is entitled to sue - and no where does that play out with worse consequences than the public school system.
I’d be happy with the schools just teaching the effective programs regardless of who came up with them. Instead we get “abstinence-only” sex ed in too many schools because sex is icky and if you teach someone what a condom is or how one works, they turn into Slutasaurus.
But I guess that’s better than taking lessons from Norway :rolleyes:
Which to me is the best approach. Let each parent decide.
The schools themselves can stick to just the plain biology of reproduction while the nitty gritty stuff should be up to families.
Sure, and while we are at it let’s allow each parent to decide on their own value of pi and e.
Yours is a terrible argument. Those kids with enlightened parents will not need the video but of course will not be harmed by it. Those kids whose parents wait until after puberty to discuss sex (or even never) will desperately need the education that the video gives but their squeamish and prudish parents will ensure they never get it.
The video is fine, allowing parents to decide what their children should and should not be taught is nuts. You send your kids to school in the expectation that every one of them receives a grounding in the basics. That video is the basics. Anything you want to tack on the end of that then fine but it seems to me that the video discusses the appearance, structure and functionality of the genitals to the same degree as we’d expect of a pancreas or liver and…I don’t about anyone else…but my cock and balls were a damn sight more relevant, immediate and important to me as a growing lad.
I ask, all of you who would object to such videos, what actual harm would be done to a child by seeing this? what harm would have been done to you by seeing this pre-puberty?
Sex education is too important to public health and safety to leave it up to the parents.
I think the state has a compelling interest in reducing teen pregnancies and reducing the spread of STD’s.
And the laboratory of the real world shows that leaving it to parents ain’t getting the job done.
I find it weird in a way that I cant quite (ahem) put my finger on. I think it’s that the bubbly, excitedness/enthusiasm of the presenter, when juxtaposed with her touching the genitals of the actors, makes her appear sexually attracted to almost everyone around her - which could happen, I guess, but is still odd.