Abstinence....Creationism..

[yjumpinoz 0]

A nearby town's board of education is discussing abstinence vs. sex ed. It seems they are going with abstinence. It got me thinking that teaching sex education in school is a lot like people's opinion on teaching creationism. It should be taught at home and not in school. I really believe that they are very similar.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

A nearby town's board of education is discussing abstinence vs. sex ed. It seems they are going with abstinence. It got me thinking that teaching sex education in school is a lot like people's opinion on teaching creationism. It should be taught at home and not in school. I really believe that they are very similar.

Kids should be taught the science of how babies are made and how diseases can be transmitted sexually. In most cases, they are going to get a better education about this from a qualified teacher than from their parents. No matter what your religious beliefs are, pregnancy and STD's are real, and I don't think that there is much of an argument about that. So that makes teaching sex education a bit different than teaching creationism.

[billvon 3,120]

>I really believe that they are very similar.

'cept that one is a public health issue and one is a more abstract science issue. Not knowing about creationism and/or evolution really won't change your life, unless you become a doctor/biologist/paleontologist etc. Not knowing that Bobby is going to get you pregnant by doing that thing he wants to do is going to change your life in a very big way. Not just via pregnancy; getting HIV at age 15 can really suck.

No school should advocate a certain type of birth control, or a certain lifestyle. But they SHOULD tell people that intercourse makes you pregnant, and birth control can help prevent that - and perhaps more importantly can help prevent transmission of STD's. We teach kids to wash their hands after they go to the bathroom in school, and knowing about condoms is a LOT more important than that.

[yjumpinoz 0]

I agree that it might be a bit dangerous to not teach the science of reproduction, but should you be able to opt out if parents do not agree with all that public schools are so capable of teaching. Just because someone is qualified to teach a subject, does not make them a good teacher. Refer to the math skills of many youngsters. For that matter how about opting out of the evolution thing as well.

[Nightingale 0]

Unfortunately, many parents aren't comfortable talking to their kids about sex, beyond "don't do it until you're married." In that situation, if kids aren't taught sex-ed properly and accurately by their school, they'll learn it from their friends in the locker room, and they'll probably learn it wrong. The problem with not teaching proper birth control in schools is that many kids will only get the abstinance message from schools and parents (remember that big push for "abstinance only" education?). The problem here is that some kids are going to have sex anyway. If they don't have accurate information about birth control, they usually end up pregnant, which can be a problem for society as a whole. When students are not educated about ways to prevent pregnancy, they hear stuff like this from their friends:

# You can't get pregnant if it's your first time.

# Jumping up and down immediately after intercourse will prevent conception.

# Douching with Coca-Cola or 7-Up will kill whatever sperm the process doesn't wash away.

# It's impossible to get pregnant if you have sex during your period.

# After intercourse, a hot bath or a heating pad on the stomach prevents conception.

# As long as neither party takes off their underpants, no babies will result.

# Taking 20 Aspirin right after will halt conception from taking place.

# Provided you do it standing up or with the girl on top, the sperm will never reach the egg.

# As long as he pulls out before he ejaculates, the girl can't get pregnant

# Sneezing after sex prevents pregnancy.


Although the list is from a website, I heard most of this from other students when I was in high school. Of course, everything on the list is totally false. An interesting figure: out of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal (including adults using the "rhythm method"), 19 will become pregnant during the first year. That's about 1 person out of 5.

[billvon 3,120]

>but should you be able to opt out if parents do not agree with all that
>public schools are so capable of teaching . . .

Then home school. But primary school is not a buffet; you can't just choose english, gym, lunch and recess and decide not to take health or science. (Which is a good thing IMO.)

>Just because someone is qualified to teach a subject, does not make
> them a good teacher. Refer to the math skills of many youngsters.

Oh, I agree there. That's sort of a separate problem (getting good teachers.) We will get good teachers when we pay them what they are worth.

>For that matter how about opting out of the evolution thing as well.

See above. Opting out of science shouldn't really be an option, at least in primary school. For some people, that's all the science they will ever get - and we have a responsibility as a democratic society to ensure at least a basic level of education for our future citizens.

[yjumpinoz 0]

I guess thats part of my problem. I am perfectly capable of teaching my youngster what he needs to know about sex. How can I trust the teachers in the "system". Here comes the homeschool thing again. I think it boils down to parents failing both in homework and teaching life skills not suited for public schools.

[billvon 3,120]

>I am perfectly capable of teaching my youngster what he needs to
>know about sex.

I have no doubt of that. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of teaching basic math and english as well. If you _want_ to do that, then homeschool them, or teach them at home and have them go to school so they see two viewpoints _and_ do better in school. Up to you.

>How can I trust the teachers in the "system".

Get to know them. Go to meet-the-teacher nights. Express your concerns to them. Talk to your kids about how they are doing. Talk to other parents. The usual stuff.

>Here comes the homeschool thing again.

Yep. If you really, honestly don't trust the local school to teach your kid, then generate your own syllabus, plan the course, and teach them at home. I think most people find it far more work than they expected - but some people have the time to spare, which is great.

One of the purposes of schooling is to teach kids how to deal with authority, how to work in cooperation with their peers, how to deal with large social situations - basically prepare them for life in the workforce. Home schooling misses some of that, but there are other ways to get that sort of experience (church groups, summer camp etc.) And if your goal is to have your kids work the farm (or some other more solitary endeavors) they may not even need that sort of experience.

[yjumpinoz 0]

I know what teachers go through, my brother is a special education teacher. Dirty thankless, payless job. Even though I am a product of public schools, I think private schools are a better option. My step son is the same age as a boy I am mentoring for, and his education is like night and day. I do think the parent shares a chunk of the blame. I am not sure of home schooling for the same reasons you mention.

[wmw999 2,589]

One way to make sure that you control his education is to teach him first, better. No matter what, the older he gets you won't be able to control his world. But if you've given him a good grounding of accurate information first, he's less likely to jump to conclusions based on ignorance.

That way you're supplementing what the school gives -- your child has more education, not just different. He'll still have access to all of the books in the library, the kid down the street, and writing on the bathroom walls to make him curious. If he's used to talking about stuff like that with you, it's more likely that you'll continue to have an input.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Tink1717 2]

Well, both issues come from the same origin: Fundamental christianity. Amazingly, neither one works and yet they both have a huge propaganda machine behind them to prop them up and hide the fact that they don't work. Meanwhile, kids keep getting less and less education while their parents whine louder and louder that kids are stupid. The mind boggles.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[yjumpinoz 0]

It is about the parents and not the Christian agenda. If parents don't take an active role in education, the student will likely suffer. My whole point was parents should teach certain things, and schools other.

[Nightingale 0]

And if parents did teach them accurately and thoroughly, schools wouldn't have to.

[Skyrad 0]

quack

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[christelsabine 1]

J., dear, why do you only "quack" around???

Have nice Easter holidays anyhow

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

It got me thinking that teaching sex education in school is a lot like people's opinion on teaching creationism. It should be taught at home and not in school. I really believe that they are very similar.

How can they be similar, sex education is "FACTUAL" and whist creationism so far is "FICTIONAL", now the problem people have with creationism is that it is taught in schools as fact not fiction.

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...How can they be similar, sex education is "FACTUAL" and whist creationism so far is "FICTIONAL"...

It's confusing to me because most men pray for sex.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Lindsey 0]

I don't think schools should be in the business of providing children's value base. That's what parents are for. (Unfortunately for many kids the values they learn at home are pretty piss poor, and hopefully they'll get something positive from their schools.)

Schools should provide children with a useful knowledge base. The reproductive system is smack dab at the center of basic biology. Hard to avoid teaching about human sexuality if we're to learn science in schools.

BUT the two (teaching abstinence and providing sex ed) aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think it's a school's job to teach abstinence myself, but if they do I don't think my child will be scarred. If they don't provide him with an education in basic sciences, then he'll definitely be at a disadvantage.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail