“…And, of course, to cause the man’s penis to erect and har… den! Now, did I do vaginal juices last week? Oh, do pay attention, Wadsworth! I know it’s Friday after-- Oh, watching the football, are you boy? Right! Move over there. I’m warning you! I may decide to set an exam this term.”
Well, after incidents such as the ones described here and here, I can hardly blame them.
Indeed, I doubt that most homeschoolers think that sex ed is an instructional course in the art of coitus. I don’t think that’s what most homeschoolers object to, however. I daresay that they’re objecting to other specifics within the curricula.
Well, if you mean that it isn’t strictly a “how to” class, then I’d agree with you. I can’t image that there are any sex ed classes which teach children the mechanics of sexual intercourse. However, there are curricula which venture into territories that many parents would disapprove of – and frankly, I can’t blame the parents for their disapproval.
The first of your two sites barely hides its squeemishness at anything to do with sex. Such as its horror at the mention of lubricants - yet without passing on the knowledge that oil-based substances can damage condoms, aren’t they risking higher failure rates? And as for describing putting a condom on a cucumber as ‘explicit’… :rolleyes: The second cite seems to have a problem with masturbation per se. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
One of the guidelines I remember from high school was that they couldn’t show a condom actually being put on a penis. So what we had instead was a video with Grammy winner Ruben Blades putting a condom on a banana, and advising the guys to always put a condom “own your banana” before sex. One problem with sex ed itself is that, probably because of sensitivities, it’s done in such a way that the people who are mature enough to deal with the information are put off by the silly presentation.
Well I don’t think you can attack JThunder’s links just for having the attitude that sex is icky – they have a distinct social conservative slant, but that’s valid.
Nevertheless, going over the sites left me with the definite impression that they’d cherry-picked their facts . . . and then painted the ones they did choose in a manner designed to raise the maximum outrage, deserved or not.
Isn’t it amazing how, according to sites such as these, liberal educators are completely depraved . . . bordering on insane? Why, it’s an outrage!
I think the ‘explicit’ part was more to do with the fact that they included the word dildo :eek: :rolleyes:
I was lucky enough that my mother was willing to talk openly about things with me, though it did embarass her and she didn’t know a lot, she did her best. The rest I picked up from Sex Ed, Health and Biology over the years. Well and the Straight Dope 
(You wouldn’t BELIEVE the things I’ve learned since reading here… oh… wait… maybe you would…)
If I hadn’t had those classes I’d be frightened at how naive I would be, because even though Mom tried she often didn’t know things (mainly about STD’s) and some things I can think of didn’t come up (like condoms, I remember something said but not a whole lot). And when I think that there are people out there who are deliberately keeping info from their kids, well that’s a scary thought.
Again, I think it’s unfair to portray this as merely “squeemishness at anything to do with sex” (emphasis added). The objections raised in these articles pertained to specific content, not just “anything to do with sex.”
Heck, I can’t fault parents for getting upset when children are taught how to go to a store and get condoms. As parents, they naturally want to have some say in such matters. So much for the mantra that “sex education ultimately belongs in the parents’ hands.”
Again, I think you’re overreacting here. Such demonstrations would be considered inappropriate in many workplaces, and could certainly cause movies to merit an “R” rating. In that light, I hardly think it’s unreasonable for parents to object to having their children exposed to such matters.
Please do remember that many households are Christian in nature, or hold conservatively religious worldviews. You might not care for those beliefs, but that doesn’t mean the schools should feel free to act against them. It would be like telling a Jewish child that he should eat pork, or telling a Hindu child that he should feel free to eat beef.
Second, that was just one of the many objections raised in that article. The rest include objections to:
[ul]
[li] “Outercourse” (sex without insertion)[/li][li] Teaching children that toxic" families are those “in which parents try to control their children, demand perfection, and pressure their children to succeed.” [/li][li]Encouraging sexual curiosity and experimentation among children[/li][li]Encouraging acceptance of teen sexuality[/li][/ul]
… and more.
Now, you might not personally have any objections to such things, but many parents would. This goes way beyond mere “squeamishness” at the topic of sex. I think it’s grossly unfair to insist that these parents are only objecting because they think that sex is “icky.” That would be a gross caricature of their actual views on the matter.
If I had a criticism of my own that might overlap in part with the feelings of social conservatives, it’s that sex ed concentrates too much on the plumbing and not enough on the human elements (including vulnerabilities and a sense of the enormity of sex).
I would add, though, rather than subtract. I’d have a couple dozen volunteer adults from the community come in and talk about their first time and I would deliberately seek out and include some people whose first time was horrible: rape victims and people who voluntarily but for the wrong reason chose to try sex. I’d also include people who talked about the vulnerabilities of being in love or how you feel if you’ve had sex with someone and the next day it turns out they’d rather be with someone else or just don’t want to see you. Yet I’d definitely make sure to include some people for whom it had been unreservedly wonderful despite not having waited until older and/or married.
And I’d encourage questions.
I cannot disagree that parents should have a right to withdraw their own children from such classes (as is the case in England, as I’ve already mentioned). But for that opinion to be forced on the whole curriculum is wrong.
How else do you make sure that people know how to put on a condom?
I presume the cites in question deal with US public schools, in which case religion should not play a role? And, once again, there should always be an opt-out
[quote]
Second, that was just one of the many objections raised in that article. The rest include objections to:
[ul]
[li] “Outercourse” (sex without insertion)[/ul][/li][/quote]
Apart from the bullshit term, that sounds like a sensible thing to be talking about.
[quote]
[ul][li] Teaching children that toxic" families are those “in which parents try to control their children, demand perfection, and pressure their children to succeed.” [/ul][/li][/quote]
That has nothing to do with sex education, and is probably a particular issue that someone has with an individual teacher.
[quote]
[ul][li]Encouraging sexual curiosity and experimentation among children[/ul][/li][/quote]
That’s a standard deflection technique from anti-sex ed campaigns. Unless they give precise examples, the statement means nothing.
[quote]
[ul][li]Encouraging acceptance of teen sexuality[/ul][/li][/quote]
So we should pretend that nobody has any sexual tendencies until they reach the legal age? Or we should constantly tell them that they’re on the verge of a felony as a result?
It’s the case in the US as well.
JThunder:
[quote[Such demonstrations would be considered inappropriate in many workplaces, and could certainly cause movies to merit an “R” rating.[/quote]
This is supposed to be sex education. The entire point is that it is supposed to be a frank and useful discussion of these things, not something suitable for work or a movie that will be seen by little kids. Why bother having it if you can only show things that would fit in a PG-13 movie?
This is a very bad analogy. Sex education classes don’t tell students to have sex. They exist (among other things) to teach them how to have sex in a safer way, and at some point every student will probably have sex. Even if you teach a Jewish child HOW to eat or prepare pork, it doesn’t mean he will do so. Religious Jews don’t avoid pork beacuse they don’t know how to eat it. 
No, it’s more like telling a Jewish child that eating pork won’t hurt them. Masturbation is a physically and psychologically harmless activity, and schools should make sure students know this.
[quote]
[li]Encouraging acceptance of teen sexuality[/li][/quote]
So you would rather pretend that teenagers aren’t sexual creatures? That’s such amazing horseshit.
A non-negligible, perhaps majority, portion of teens have sex. Better that they have sex with a condom than without. Far, far, far, far, far better. The school has an obligation to do whatever they can to make sure that these sexually active teens know how to protect themselves.
But hey, if you want teens to get STDs and have abortions, then just keep on supporting your “DON’T DO IT!” form of “sex ed.” I mean, that tact worked so well with alcohol and drugs, after all.
Look, first of all, I was addressing the accusation that “People who oppose sex education do so because they think it’s icky.” That is simply a childish and gross distortion of the real reasons why many of them object to the sex education that’s in our school’s today. If you want to take issue with their opinions, feel free to do so – in some other thread. The point is that their reasons go beyond merely “Sex is icky!!!” and it’s intellectually dishonest to state that this is their true motivation.
Heck, I don’t agree with all the reasons that they put forth, but at least I can see their points of view.
Now, time doesn’t permit me to address every one of the points which you raised in response, but in brief…
First of all, you’re distorting the context of my statement, which was about masturbation, not sex. Second, the parents in question were objecting to sex ed courses which encouraged masturbation as a suitable outlet for sexual desires. This is most certainly the same as telling students to masturbate.
Nonsense. Eating pork may not hurt a Jew, but that doesn’t mean the schools should encourage a Jewish child to do so. Lack of physical harm is NOT sufficient justification for the schools to undermine the religious teachings of the parents.
The real “amazing horseshit” is this false dilemma which you’ve painted. Parents may object to “encouraging acceptance of teen sexuality,” but this does not mean that they’re pretending that teen sexuality doesn’t exist. Rather, their intent is to discourage teen sex, rather than encourage its acceptance!
It is rather childish to insist that this is equivalent to “pretending that teen sexuality doesn’t exist.”
First of all, I have NOT been preaching that in this thread. Heck, I have said practically nothing about how I feel sex education should be handled. As I said, my point has been that it’s unfair to insist that parents who object to sex education are doing so merely because they think sex is “icky.”
Second, one of the links which I cited specifically pointed out that the so-called “abstinence-only” programs from the U.S. government say precious little about absitinence. Indeed, at least one of them included classroom instruction on how to purchase condoms from a store, and how to put them on. This is NOT “abstinence only” by any stretch of the imagination!
Third, one doesn’t have to promote an “abstinence only” program to object to some of the material in the existing programs (such as the aforementioned exercise in condom purchasing). So even if “abstinence only” is as ineffective as you claim, that doesn’t nullify the variuos objections which parents have raised with regard to many sex ed campaigns.
And fourth, even if these parents are completely wrong in their views of what constitutes effective sex education, it is still wrong to insist that they are simply motivated by squeamishness about the topic of sex. You may disagree with their points of view, but that does not justify this gross and childish distortion of what they are actually saying.
Can you give any non-religious explanations why masturbation is wrong?
By suggesting that you pretend masturbation does not exist, I presumed you were willing to deny other manifestations of sexuality as well.
I would strongly object to a program that talked about condoms without talking about buying them, using them, lubricants, how to talk about them with your first boy/gorlfriend, etc. But I guess that’s how I was brought up…
Until somebody gives me a reason other than squeamishness for not talking about lubrication, I stand by my opinion.
In Judaism it is stressed that it is acceptable to break commandments in order to survive. That strikes me as rather comparable. It’s better to eat pork if you have to eat; it’s unquestionably safer to masturbate than to have sex. Teenagers are going to masturbate or not masturbate regardless of what a class says in any case.
Irrelevant. Even if masturbation is not inherently wrong, that does not mean the schools should go around teaching its use, in defiance of the parents’ religous instruction.
Again, let’s revisit the pork and beef analogies. Even in the absence of non-religious reasons for complete abstinence from these meats, that does not give the schools free license to encourage students to partake of pork and beef products. The mere lack of harm, and the mere lack of secular justification, is not sufficient grounds to countermand the parents’ moral instruction.
Since I said nothing about pretending that masturbation does not exist, your response is both irrelevant and a classic strawman argument.
Again, a false dilemma. There is a huge spectrum between “not mentioning condoms” and “teaching students how to use them, using cucumbers as graphic visual aids.”
The parents in question raised a great many points, not just the issue of lubrication. Your response is therefore a case of selective listening – a deliberate ignoring of the points they raised, so that we can pretend that it’s about nothing more than “squeamishness” and “lubrication.”
And second, they may be concerned about the appropriateness of that level of detail, given the age range of their children. This is not the same as mere squeamishness, though it would convenient for you to insist that it is. Heck, the parents could be completely wrong in their viewpoint, but that still does not mean that they are just being “squeamish” – not by any logical standard, that is.
As I have already pointed out, the cites appear to refer to US public schools, so religious instruction should be irrelevant other than in providing an opt-out.
Your analogy suggests the direct encouragment of masturbation, which is not the case in point.
Again, a false dilemma. There is a huge spectrum between “not mentioning condoms” and “teaching students how to use them, using cucumbers as graphic visual aids.”
To start with, in the cite in question, the parents are not raising points - the author is. And do we know anything at all about him? In any case - do you think that the subject matter mentioned is of the type that should be explained to a ‘normal’ teenager, thorugh one channel or another?
I saw no indication of the age range. But it’s a simple fact that 11, 10, and in exceptional cases even 8 year olds can get pregnant.
The Bible says ‘be fruitful and multiply’- does that mean contraception shouldn’t be taught? It would seem to be in defiance of parental religious instruction. Parents with objections should take their kids out of the classes if it’s a problem. Attempting to censor what is taught in the class and reducing it’s effectiveness is stupid.
How about teaching sex education to parents, and give them the tools? Duh.
It sounds inefficient to do that if you’re trying to teach the kids. And the kids required to come to school, parents are not. It’s always good for parents to know as much as possible, but that doesn’t guarantee the children will know what they need to. And a parent probably isn’t going to have the same knowledge or access to stuff that a teacher will.
Which is the real crux of the issue, leaving aside the religious component.
From my observations, a really fast way to self-inflict a smackdown is to go up to a parent and tell him/her: “Hey! I know better than you how to raise your children right.” The hostility to sex education has at its root that to many parents this is the final non-negotiable line-in-the-sand issue on which they’ll surrender no more to society.
As to how come sexual “morality” is non-negotiable but, say, political morality (civics lessons) and the ethics of competitiveness (sports) can be safely handed over to the school system to inculcate, I’ll let an actual parent deal with that.