# Sexual education - what is that?



## jonquiliser

Kajjo said:


> Well, I think we just call all information in context of puberty and bodily changes "sexual education of children". Many children have their physiological puberty before they are mentally interested in sex. Having pleasure by masturbation should never be taught as being bad, but as normal and healthy, but it is an issue that most teenagers understand by themselves pretty good. Really dramatic changes are menstruation and possible pregnancy and to focus on that is actually quite important. I see all bodily changes that occur with puberty and that are connected to fertility and propagation as sexually relevant.
> 
> Kajjo




Isn't there a world of difference between sexually relevant and sexual? There is nothing sexual in having your period, but of course it is relevant in some sense to sexuality whether you have it or not. Time is also sexually relevant, if you don't have time to have sex, you won't have sex. Time is not sexual. 

I believe there is a widespread tradition of reducing sex - when it comes to sexual education for young people - to reproduction. I imagine it has to do with embarrassment or difficulties on the part of teachers to deal with such a delicate matter. Especially, in the case of girls, sexuality is sometimes equaled to (the beginning of) menses, pregnancy, childbirth etc. It is as if sexuality, when it comes to girls, is supposed to mean "being sexy". What about sexual pleasure? It is "normal" that boys masturbate, but the silence around female masturbation is more compact. 

I believe sexual education should actually talk about sex - what it can be like when you have sex, how sex have been considered, ideas and preconceptions the kids may have, expectations etc. Heteronormativity should obviously be dealt with. And also, there should be discussion around how girls and boys/women and men have different expectations on them. 

Practical things can probably be sorted out pretty quickly: condoms are 99% safe, be careful not to break them, there are contraceptive pills [for women; why not for men? ], etc etc. The personal side of sex, instead, is interesting, but also difficult, especially for young people. Why not help them on their ways?


----------



## cuchuflete

I live in a fairly puritanical country.  Discussion of the pleasurable aspects of sex, rather than reproductive biology alone, would certainly get many parents into a foolish fury.

Sex education was new to public schools when I was subjected to it, and it was included in "health education".
It addressed the anatomical and biological aspects directly and efficiently.   I do not trust public authorities to
do a good job of talking about sexuality beyond reproduction, due to the general ineptitude of bureaucrats, and the constraints that would be imposed by the puritans.  Non-puritanical parents could do this teaching more effectively, and the honest exchange between parents and adolescents should help build trust around what for some is a needlessly 'delicate' topic.


----------



## Mate

jonquiliser said:


> Isn't there a world of difference between sexually relevant and sexual?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing sexual in having your period, but of course it is relevant in some sense to sexuality whether you have it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time is also sexually relevant, if you don't have time to have sex, you won't have sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a stupid joke popped into my mind. Do not mind me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there is a widespread tradition of reducing sex - when it comes to sexual education for young people - to reproduction. I imagine it has to do with embarrassment or difficulties on the part of teachers to deal with such a delicate matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a delicate matter indeed. I believe that most of the teachers may find extremely difficult to deal with potential reactions to sexual education from the young people parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially, in the case of girls, sexuality is sometimes equaled to (the beginning of) menses, pregnancy, childbirth etc. It is as if sexuality, when it comes to girls, is supposed to mean "being sexy". What about sexual pleasure? It is "normal" that boys masturbate, but the silence around female masturbation is more compact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My country is officially Catholic, and even if it was officially Muslim or Jewish the issue of pleasure linked with sexuality would be seen as inmoral. So I believe that for now we'll have to put up with the conservative/preventive sexual education that's currently taught.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe sexual education should actually talk about sex - what it can be like when you have sex, how sex have been considered, ideas and preconceptions the kids may have, expectations etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I adhere wholehartedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heteronormativity should obviously be dealt with. And also, there should be discussion around how girls and boys/women and men have different expectations on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At present, that would be too much to ask for here.
Click to expand...


----------



## Joca

Well, not much to add, but I think that in an ideal world, sexual education would start at home. If only parents had more time to dedicate to their kids... Because such would be education with love. But obviously parents would have to beware of permissiveness and prejudice, so that they would be effective.


----------



## Amityville

It's  not universal then to cringe when your parents broach such subjects. I don't believe I was alone as an adolescent in not liking to think my parents and sex had anything to do with each other.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I teach my pre-adolescent students about puberty and sex at the end of the school year, when we've had a long time to build up a trusting relationship.  The lessons are linked to the curriculum, which means we use concrete physiological explanations and don't get into feelings of pleasure or anything else.  The older students learn about birth control and disease, but with this age group we just want to make sure that they don't think they're abnormal as they enter puberty.

Last year I co-taught with a man, which was perfect; we each taught the class as a whole, and then divided the class into girls and boys for the last lesson so that the kids could ask questions a bit more comfortably.  The kids don't like hearing about sex from their teachers either (it implies that their teachers must be having sex ..... waaaay too much information to think about).  Puberty and emotional changes, on the other hand, they can deal with if a comfortable environment is set up for discussion.  

Unfortunately, not many students have both a male and female teacher at their disposal; and there are some things kids are just not comfortable discussing with an adult of the opposite sex (or any adult).


----------



## Athaulf

jonquiliser said:


> I believe sexual education should actually talk about sex - what it can be like when you have sex, how sex have been considered, ideas and preconceptions the kids may have, expectations etc. Heteronormativity should obviously be dealt with. And also, there should be discussion around how girls and boys/women and men have different expectations on them.
> 
> Practical things can probably be sorted out pretty quickly: condoms are 99% safe, be careful not to break them, there are contraceptive pills [for women; why not for men? ], etc etc. The personal side of sex, instead, is interesting, but also difficult, especially for young people. Why not help them on their ways?


The problem is that when it comes to this "personal side" (and most other things you mention above), different people have a very different outlook on things. (And you haven't even mentioned some of the most controversial issues, such as abortion.) I don't think there is a single perspective on these matters that wouldn't be found as inaccurate, offensive, or immoral by this or that significant part of the population. I think that this holds even for societies that are relatively homogeneous culturally. 

Even these "practical things" you mention are full of moot points and controversy. What does it mean when you say that "condoms are 99% safe"? Does this number "99%" have any coherent meaning at all, and if it does, which experimental data is it based on? Ultimately, there is no such thing as foolproof contraception or protection from STDs; engaging in sex always means taking some risk. It's up to individuals to derive their own conclusions and ways of behavior by considering the risks and benefits in each particular case, and these conclusions may be completely different even when made by equally rational individuals. Again, even when it comes to the most practical matters, there is no single perspective that would be suitable for teaching as a universal government-endorsed truth.


----------



## JamesM

> My country is officially Catholic, and even if it was officially Muslim or Jewish the issue of pleasure linked with sexuality would be seen as inmoral.


 
I'd just like to say that I don't think any of these religions teach that the pleasure of sex is immoral, rather that seeking sex _merely_ for pleasure is immoral.  There is quite a difference.


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> I'd just like to say that I don't think any of these religions teach that the pleasure of sex is immoral, rather that seeking sex _merely_ for pleasure is immoral. There is quite a difference.


That seems to be a strangely fine hair to split.  How do you say that with different words?
It is not acceptable to seek sex just for pleasure but if you seek sex for some other purpose then it is alright to enjoy the experience of sex.

I often have sex just for pleasure, what am I doing wrong? (according to these religions)

.,,


----------



## JamesM

. said:


> That seems to be a strangely fine hair to split. How do you say that with different words?
> It is not acceptable to seek sex just for pleasure but if you seek sex for some other purpose then it is alright to enjoy the experience of sex.
> 
> I often have sex just for pleasure, what am I doing wrong? (according to these religions)
> 
> .,,


 
I knew I'd be sorry to have even posted anything.  It is remarkable to me how much tolerance is shown in many of these discussions until the topic of religion is brought up. The question is posed very aggressively, but let me see if I can answer it respectfully.

If you honestly see this as splitting hairs, we may be coming at this from such different points of view that a discussion wouldn't be very fruitful in any case, but I'll give it a try. 

If we set it in another arena does it seem less "hair-splitting"? If a person eats and enjoys food on a regular basis he is perfectly normal. In my religion (Christianity), there is no edict that says, "don't enjoy food while you eat it." What an odd concept! Many of the stories about Jesus take place around food and eating. Food is to be enjoyed. 

If a person seeks out food as an overriding concern on a constant basis, though, simply to satisfy his taste buds, he has developed a disorder, in my opinion. His pleasure is not a part of his eating; his enjoyment of eating has been commandeered by his search for pleasure. This is what I would call a glutton: a person consumed by cravings. The person can become a slave to his desire and that desire rules him. He does not have the experience; the experience has him.

I was responding to someone who said that linking of pleasure to sexuality was immoral according to several religions. I do not think that is the case. If the person we are having sex with is only a means to an end, our gratification, then I believe that my religion teaches that this is not a moral sexual situation. The person has now become an object that serves our pleasure, not another human being we are sharing an intimate bonding with. Any action that treats humans as things is, in my framework, immoral. If you're having sex with another person and it's all about your pleasure and nothing about the other person, I'd say there's something wrong with the picture, but that's me.

This is entirely different, though, than saying that sexual pleasure itself is immoral according to my religion. If that still seems like splitting hairs, I don't think there's much else I can say to present my opinion in a way that would allow it to be appreciated.

To tie this back in to the topic here, when we teach sex education, what overall framework do we place sex in? I'm sure there are many people who don't see it the way I do. That's where it becomes very difficult for sex education in a classroom environment to be anything other than a lesson in biological mechanics.


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> I knew I'd be sorry to have even posted anything.  It is remarkable to me how much tolerance is shown in many of these discussions until the topic of religion is brought up. The question is posed very aggressively, but let me see if I can answer it respectfully.


I am truely sorry if I have displayed any intollerance toward any religion with regards to this response.
Jeeze, if you think that this question is posed agressively then you are not used to my accent. I generally call a spade a bloody shovel. I was thinking beige thoughts as I wrote to try and be as non confrontational as possible.
Mate, you raised religion and potentially judgemental attitudes towards a very private and personal issue that really has nothing to do with anybody. My enjoyment of sex should have nothing to do with anybody.



JamesM said:


> If you honestly see this as splitting hairs, we may be coming at this from such different points of view that a discussion wouldn't be very fruitful in any case, but I'll give it a try.


 


JamesM said:


> If we set it in another arena does it seem less "hair-splitting"? If a person eats and enjoys food on a regular basis he is perfectly normal. In my religion (Christianity), there is no edict that says, "don't enjoy food while you eat it." What an odd concept! Many of the stories about Jesus take place around food and eating. Food is to be enjoyed.


This analogy loses me. I eat food so that I don't die. That's it. If I could find another way I would but I am stuck with the biological functions so I will continue to cram the fuel in my mouth and masticate it and swallow it and process it and excrete it but it is not an experience that I call pleasureable unless I am so devoid of fuel that I am approaching starvation and then my animal cravings kick in and I seek food.
This is nothing like my approach to sex. With sex I prefer regular nibbles with my mate rather than a binge and bust controlled by availability and hormones. 



JamesM said:


> If a person seeks out food as an overriding concern on a constant basis, though, simply to satisfy his taste buds, he has developed a disorder, in my opinion. His pleasure is not a part of his eating; his enjoyment of eating has been commandeered by his search for pleasure. This is what I would call a glutton: a person consumed by cravings. The person can become a slave to his desire and that desire rules him. He does not have the experience; the experience has him.


I can survive without sex but a week or so with no food will kill me. This is too strange a comparison for me to get my head around.



JamesM said:


> I was responding to someone who said that linking of pleasure to sexuality was immoral according to several religions. I do not think that is the case. If the person we are having sex with is only a means to an end, our gratification, then I believe that my religion teaches that this is not a moral sexual situation. The person has now become an object that serves our pleasure, not another human being we are sharing an intimate bonding with. Any action that treats humans as things is, in my framework, immoral. If you're having sex with another person and it's all about your pleasure and nothing about the other person, I'd say there's something wrong with the picture, but that's me.


I am often a means to an end for my wife to achieve sexual gratification and my wife is often an end for me to achieve my sexual gratification and sometimes we haved a dead heat and it is marvelous but we still regularly use each other for sex and will do for decades to come.



JamesM said:


> This is entirely different, though, than saying that sexual pleasure itself is immoral according to my religion. If that still seems like splitting hairs, I don't think there's much else I can say to present my opinion in a way that would allow it to be appreciated.


The deeper I read the more confused I become.



JamesM said:


> To tie this back in to the topic here, when we teach sex education, what overall framework do we place sex in? I'm sure there are many people who don't see it the way I do. That's where it becomes very difficult for sex education in a classroom environment to be anything other than a lesson in biological mechanics.


I do not think that sexual education has any place in the classroom. I think that sex education has little place in the class room.

I am not allowed to post details of quasi intimate practices that only just touch on sex in these forums as they are of such a private nature. I can see that logic. I may not agree with the particular decision but I certainly can see the logic behind the decision.

I am horrified at the concept of a teacher being involved in the sex or sexual education of children.
This is firmly and totally the responsibility and right of the parents of the children concerned.
There is no cookie cutter approach to sexuality.  What happens if the child is homosexual and is being taught by a rigidly homophobic teacher or the education is being conducted in a rigidly homophobic institution.
Would you think it fair and reasonable to have a lesbian deliver sexual education lectures to 9 year old heterosexual kids?
What if the kid is asexual or bordering on asexuality?
A nuts and bolts discussion of hydraulics and huge babies being pushed through my what?? This is likely to be less than beneficial.
Mum and dad are the ones to let our next generation know how to make their next generation.
Fortunately my mum and dad were there for me because the concept of Prime Minister John Winston Howard or his predecessors having any influence on my sexual education could have sent me screaming for the pink mascara and turned me into a confirmed shirt lifter.

.,,


----------



## Joca

I knew I'd be sorry to have even posted anything. It is remarkable to me how much tolerance is shown in many of these discussions until the topic of religion is brought up. The question is posed very aggressively, but let me see if I can answer it respectfully.

Hi James: Well, I guess that if you had mentioned ethics rather than religion, then you wouldn't have met so much intolerance, if that's what you mean. It's generally a lot more neutral to talk in terms of ethics, since ethics should be a concern of everyone, while not everybody seems to give religion a prominent place or role in their lives these days any more, let alone in their sexual lives. 

If you honestly see this as splitting hairs, we may be coming at this from such different points of view that a discussion wouldn't be very fruitful in any case, but I'll give it a try. 

This is only fair to say. In fact, you know, when there is a discussion, there is a double objective, if I may say so, though this is not always very clear to everyone involved: 1. to say how you differ from each other; 2. to find what common ground you both share.

If we set it in another arena does it seem less "hair-splitting"? If a person eats and enjoys food on a regular basis he is perfectly normal. In my religion (Christianity), there is no edict that says, "don't enjoy food while you eat it." What an odd concept! Many of the stories about Jesus take place around food and eating. Food is to be enjoyed. 

If a person seeks out food as an overriding concern on a constant basis, though, simply to satisfy his taste buds, he has developed a disorder, in my opinion. His pleasure is not a part of his eating; his enjoyment of eating has been commandeered by his search for pleasure. This is what I would call a glutton: a person consumed by cravings. The person can become a slave to his desire and that desire rules him. He does not have the experience; the experience has him.

I see your point and agree with it. Any good nutritionist will warn you against overeating. If this is all about sexual education, then the good educator (if there must be one) will likewise warn you against over-sex, if there is such a word. Yet, I believe that overeating may be necessary during certain stages of your growth. It's interesting to observe how boys and girls approach this from different angles: girls tend to eat frequently but small portions, while boys eat huge portions, but fewer times a day. The danger, in my opinion, is to carry on these practices into adulthood and old age. Maybe it's the same with sex?

I was responding to someone who said that linking of pleasure to sexuality was immoral according to several religions. I do not think that is the case. If the person we are having sex with is only a means to an end, our gratification, then I believe that my religion teaches that this is not a moral sexual situation. The person has now become an object that serves our pleasure, not another human being we are sharing an intimate bonding with. Any action that treats humans as things is, in my framework, immoral. If you're having sex with another person and it's all about your pleasure and nothing about the other person, I'd say there's something wrong with the picture, but that's me.

Let's go on with our comparison. In order to eat, you have to kill. Do you think it is immoral to kill in order to eat? What other choices do you have? I have yet to meet someone living entirely on ripe fruit that falls from a tree on its own. In other words, you eat basically in self-interest. Maybe it's the same with sex: when you are having sex with a mate, whether you love them or not, whether you are aware of it or not, you are basically doing it in self-interest. The point is: "you" refers to both partners. It is like dancing. If there's love between the partners, that's ok: it's another ingredient, but some people might do well (maybe even better) without it. What I find "wrong" about sex is the ill-treatment of the partner (although a few people will derive pleasure from sadism and masochism), no concern about hygiene and the risk of pregnancy (in case of different genders) and rape and pedophilia. I have a position with regards to prostitution: it can be necessary in some cases, but it should not be degrading to those involved in it, but rather a matter of choice (some might say I am dreaming). These are, in my opinion, the topics with which sexual education (if there must be one) should be concerned (some of them are indeed beyond the school): hygiene, mechanical dysfunctions (how to approach them), phobias, pregnancy issues, emotional issues and, if adequate, ethical treatment of one's partner (only do to them what they agree with - this where religion or ethics and sex might touch each other, but as far as I can see, it is only here). 

To tie this back in to the topic here, when we teach sex education, what overall framework do we place sex in? I'm sure there are many people who don't see it the way I do. That's where it becomes very difficult for sex education in a classroom environment to be anything other than a lesson in biological mechanics.

I agree. This looks like mass education. I still don't have a formula, but I am sure sexual education starts at home, at the very first moment you are born: it is your relationship with your parents that will in the first place provide you with a framework for your own sexuality.

JC

PS. I am still having trouble working/writing within quotations.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

. said:


> IThere is no cookie cutter approach to sexuality.  What happens if the child is homosexual and is being taught by a rigidly homophobic teacher or the education is being conducted in a rigidly homophobic institution.
> Would you think it fair and reasonable to have a lesbian deliver sexual education lectures to 9 year old heterosexual kids?
> What if the kid is asexual or bordering on asexuality?
> 
> .,,



To turn this around ....

What if the parent is rigidly homophobic and has a gay child, is a gay parent of a heterosexual child, or parent to an asexual child?

This is why I believe that sexual education should be a shared endeavour.


----------



## cuchuflete

Here is a probable sex*ual* education curriculum that would emanate from the Bush administration:

1- Sexual pleasure should be shared by married heterosexuals only, in conventional positions, in private.

2- While it is common and acceptable, it is not absolutely necessary to turn the lights out before embarking on
sexual activities with your married (to you!) heterosexual partner.


3-  There is no 3-.


----------



## JamesM

. said:


> I am truely sorry if I have displayed any intollerance toward any religion with regards to this response.
> Jeeze, if you think that this question is posed agressively then you are not used to my accent. I generally call a spade a bloody shovel. I was thinking beige thoughts as I wrote to try and be as non confrontational as possible.
> Mate, you raised religion and potentially judgemental attitudes towards a very private and personal issue that really has nothing to do with anybody. My enjoyment of sex should have nothing to do with anybody.


 
Please point out where I said anything about *you*. A person's ethics may be derived from any number of sources - religion, personal upbringing, study and reflection, "osmosis."   Much of mine comes from my religion.  That does not ipso facto mean that I expect you to take on my ethics _or _my religion.  

The fact that I was disagreeing with what I considered a mischaracterization of my religion's teachings about sex has damn all to do with you.   Why you would presume to take it personally is beyond me.  

I have described what I believe to be my ethical framework derived from my adherence to my religion.  I have not at any point said, implied, or hinted that my ethical framework _should_ be yours or _is _yours.  You asked me to describe in other words what I was saying.  I did so. 

"Potentially judgmental?" I think I'm beginning to understand why the mention of the word religion is such a hot button around here.  Somehow people think that if I use the "R" word,  I'm saying "... and this is how it should be for the rest of the world."  That's a pretty big assumption to make about anyone involved in an intelligent discussion about an issue.  I certainly don't make that assumption about anyone else posting here, and I kindly ask you not to make it about me.  

I think there's a lot more _actual_ judgmentalism going on here than any _potential _I've introduced by using the "R" word.



			
				Joca said:
			
		

> Hi James: Well, I guess that if you had mentioned ethics rather than religion, then you wouldn't have met so much intolerance, if that's what you mean. It's generally a lot more neutral to talk in terms of ethics, since ethics should be a concern of everyone, while not everybody seems to give religion a prominent place or role in their lives these days any more, let alone in their sexual lives.




I was responding to a post that characterized three major world religions as teaching that pleasure in sex was immoral.  I was disagreeing with that characterization.  How I could do that without using the "R" word is incomprehensible.  

Why must this one word be treated with intolerance here?  I am not promoting, proselytizing, judging, or condemning with any of my posts and I would hope that no one else who uses the word is, either.  This knee-jerk reaction to "religion" is surprising and discouraging to me in such an open forum.


----------



## Joca

JamesM said:


> ... I was responding to a post that characterized three major world religions as teaching that pleasure in sex was immoral. I was disagreeing with that characterization. How I could do that without using the "R" word is incomprehensible.
> 
> No, it was not your fault. I am sorry for my faulty observation: you were not the first one to mention Religion. But it seems you were the first to mention it from inside, if you see what this means: you clearly belong to a Religion. But, mind you, I am not saying this belonging is wrong.
> 
> 
> Why must this one word be treated with intolerance here? I am not promoting, proselytizing, judging, or condemning with any of my posts and I would hope that no one else who uses the word is, either. This knee-jerk reaction to "religion" is surprising and discouraging to me in such an open forum.
> 
> It is hard to be neutral towards Religion, unless you are a scholar or something. The very word brings up a lot of issues for many people, and not surprisingly a lot of resentment. That is why talking about Religion, either for or against it, is much like walking over eggs, assuming that you can readily understand this vivid expression from the Portuguese language.


----------



## Blehh.

I think sexual education should cover what sexual intercourse actually _is_, anatomy related to intercourse, and different methods of protection against STDs and unwanted pregnancy. Different types of STDs should be covered, and not encouraging nor discouraging sex should be emphasized. Sexual education should be objective, and it should tell students that it is their choice whether or not to abstain or have premarital sex. It should acknowledge LGBT youth and asexual youth. It should also show the emphasis on sex in our society today and let students make their own opinions about it.

However, it should not preach a certain 'way' or 'method' towards when one should or shouldn't have sex. The moral/religious reasoning towards sex should be left to parents, and students should be told that they can talk to their parents about sex and take guidance from their parents about moral reasoning.


----------



## .   1

Chaska Ñawi said:


> What if the parent is rigidly homophobic and has a gay child, is a gay parent of a heterosexual child, or parent to an asexual child?


And the teacher assigned by the school is a closet weirdo who sleeps with the fishes.
Who does society choose to teach sexuality?
I have now invested 20 years of my life in the production of the most important thing I can ever be involved in.
I taught her how to eat and walk and talk and drink and drive and write and ride and cut and swing and make and and take and give and do and don't and think and respond and interact and just to be.  I gave her her ethics and her outlook on life.
Why does a third party have the right to waltz in and add views about sexuality that are almost certain to clash with mine at some point.
I remember my daughter and her entry into the world of womanhood.
If she had started to 'bleed' and approached a teacher who holds one of the varied views about menstruation I have read recently she could well have been traumatised for life.  As it is she doesn't give a fig.

I have seen the results of rigidly homophbic 'parents', and I use the term parent advisedly for such a creature, and gay children and the end result is that the kid leaves home as soon as possible and doesn't go back.  A family splintered.
A procreator a parent does not make.

I will have a go at the concept of gay parents but I am not sure if they would constitute a statistically significant portion of our society.
I would assume that gay parents would be overjoyed that their kids came out straight.
I have never met a homosexual who has not suffered extreme villification and ostracisation and the gay parents would be well aware of this.
A parent will want what will make their kids happy with life.



Chaska Ñawi said:


> This is why I believe that sexual education should be a shared endeavour.


Shared with whom?
I believe that sexual education is a very private and intimate endeavour.
Now that I think of it I don't remember educating my daughter.
She always had a lot of female friends at school and a couple of her male friends were gay as was at least one of the girls now that the penny has dropped.
I wasn't really sure that my daughter was straight until about a month or so ago when she invited a boyfriend home.  She may not be straight.  My daughter may be a flaming queer and just trying the other side to make sure.
It will make no difference to me or the way I view her.  She is my daughter and I made her and I am proud of what I have done.

.,,


----------



## Joca

. said:


> And the teacher assigned by the school is a closet weirdo who sleeps with the fishes.
> Who does society choose to teach sexuality?
> I have now invested 20 years of my life in the production of the most important thing I can ever be involved in.
> I taught her how to eat and walk and talk and drink and drive and write and ride and cut and swing and make and and take and give and do and don't and think and respond and interact and just to be. I gave her her ethics and her outlook on life.
> Why does a third party have the right to waltz in and add views about sexuality that are almost certain to clash with mine at some point.
> I remember my daughter and her entry into the world of womanhood.
> If she had started to 'bleed' and approached a teacher who holds one of the varied views about menstruation I have read recently she could well have been traumatised for life. As it is she doesn't give a fig.
> 
> I have seen the results of rigidly homophbic 'parents', and I use the term parent advisedly for such a creature, and gay children and the end result is that the kid leaves home as soon as possible and doesn't go back. A family splintered.
> A procreator a parent does not make.
> 
> I will have a go at the concept of gay parents but I am not sure if they would constitute a statistically significant portion of our society.
> I would assume that gay parents would be overjoyed that their kids came out straight.
> I have never met a homosexual who has not suffered extreme villification and ostracisation and the gay parents would be well aware of this.
> A parent will want what will make their kids happy with life.
> 
> Shared with whom?
> I believe that sexual education is a very private and intimate endeavour.
> Now that I think of it I don't remember educating my daughter.
> She always had a lot of female friends at school and a couple of her male friends were gay as was at least one of the girls now that the penny has dropped.
> I wasn't really sure that my daughter was straight until about a month or so ago when she invited a boyfriend home. She may not be straight. My daughter may be a flaming queer and just trying the other side to make sure.
> It will make no difference to me or the way I view her. She is my daughter and I made her and I am proud of what I have done.
> 
> .,,


 
This post raises a few important points; I might agree with most of them, maybe disagree with few. But this is not the point. Moreover, I feel that it could have been produced by a passionate person. But this is not the point, either.

Here we are talking about words and sexual education. And we often forget about the original meaning of the word "education". This post somehow made me remind it.

"Educate" from Latin "e + ducare". "E" means out of, outside; "Ducare" means to lead, to bring. So, to bring (something) outside. When we educate someone, we are bringing his or her inner qualities out. 

I understand .,,'s pride of having "made" her daughter, but if we go by the very definition of the word, he simply made her blossom. Most of it was already inside her. 

JC


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> . said:
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to be a strangely fine hair to split. How do you say that with different words?
> It is not acceptable to seek sex just for pleasure but if you seek sex for some other purpose then it is alright to enjoy the experience of sex.
> 
> I often have sex just for pleasure, what am I doing wrong? (according to these religions)
> 
> .,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew I'd be sorry to have even posted anything.  It is remarkable to me how much tolerance is shown in many of these discussions until the topic of religion is brought up. The question is posed very aggressively, but let me see if I can answer it respectfully.
Click to expand...

 


JamesM said:


> Please point out where I said anything about *you*. A person's ethics may be derived from any number of sources - religion, personal upbringing, study and reflection, "osmosis." Much of mine comes from my religion. That does not ipso facto mean that I expect you to take on my ethics _or _my religion.


What am I to do?
You quoted my question.
How can I respond other than as me?
You have your opinions and I have mine.
I have not made personal comments about you.
I have stated my position and asked you for clarification.

What would you do if I quoted your opinion on something and then said that I thought that the question was posed aggressively.

You are the one hoisting base canards.
Yolu have accused me of aggressive attitude toward you.
Please show me the aggressive tone I had used towards you prior to your base and cheap swipe?
Aggression and personal attack are enough to get a person banned from this joint and I know that I did not attack you nor was I aggressive towards you.
Now I am not so sure.
Perhaps you should lay your cards on the table and display the reason that you accused me of aggression.



JamesM said:


> The fact that I was disagreeing with what I considered a mischaracterization of my religion's teachings about sex has damn all to do with you. Why you would presume to take it personally is beyond me.


 If you quote me I will take it personally. It's just the kind of bloke that I am. Funny about that.



JamesM said:


> I have described what I believe to be my ethical framework derived from my adherence to my religion. I have not at any point said, implied, or hinted that my ethical framework _should_ be yours or _is _yours. You asked me to describe in other words what I was saying. I did so.


 And I responded. Cool.



JamesM said:


> "Potentially judgmental?" I think I'm beginning to understand why the mention of the word religion is such a hot button around here. Somehow people think that if I use the "R" word,  I'm saying "... and this is how it should be for the rest of the world." That's a pretty big assumption to make about anyone involved in an intelligent discussion about an issue. I certainly don't make that assumption about anyone else posting here, and I kindly ask you not to make it about me.


 I find that 'R' word to be as potentially offensive as that other 'R' word or even the 'B' word.




JamesM said:


> I think there's a lot more _actual_ judgmentalism going on here than any _potential _I've introduced by using the "R" word.


I think a lot of things and sometimes I am right.





JamesM said:


> I was responding to a post that characterized three major world religions as teaching that pleasure in sex was immoral. I was disagreeing with that characterization. How I could do that without using the "R" word is incomprehensible.


If that was your aim perhaps you should have aimed more for comprehensibility. You missed me completely and even your clarification did nothing to help.

Now that I see your case stated openly I agree with you 100% 



JamesM said:


> Why must this one word be treated with intolerance here? I am not promoting, proselytizing, judging, or condemning with any of my posts and I would hope that no one else who uses the word is, either. This knee-jerk reaction to "religion" is surprising and discouraging to me in such an open forum.


This is because religion is the most intensely personal and private thing that we possess.
This whole post of yours displays your sensitivity about your religion.
We are all the same as you.
We all feel threatened when a totally contrary religious view is expressed.
There are any number of religious threads in which to discuss religion but religion and sexual education are a very difficult bedfellows.

.,,


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

. said:


> Now that I think of it I don't remember educating my daughter.
> She always had a lot of female friends at school and a couple of her male friends were gay as was at least one of the girls now that the penny has dropped.
> 
> .,,



In my experience, this undoubtedly means that her friends (and maybe teachers as well) had a hand in educating her.  (You haven't mentioned your wife's involvement in the education.)  She also presumably learned something from books and movies.

Being a closet weirdo who sleeps with the fishes  , I'm happy to see my children exposed to many different perspectives - to learn from conversations with my husband and me, to learn with and from their friends, and from the examples of other adults.  We have gay friends, straight friends, single friends .... and the children learn about relationships from all of them, whether they are aware of it or not.  I would hate to think that their ideas of relationships and sexuality were shaped entirely by two people.  

More and more Canadian kids seem to be watching very explicit sex on the computer screen, and forming many of their ideas of sex from what they watch.  I'd hope that before they reach that point they've at least had a firm base created by parents AND teachers, and are able to tell the difference between loving relationships, entertainment, and partners as objects rather than partners.

If we as a society don't give our children the information they need, they will create their own myths .... which is why so many girls thought they could get pregnant by kissing, or that they were dying when their first period came.


----------



## cuchuflete

Chaska said:
			
		

> ...a firm base created by parents AND teachers,



I don't speak for Canada, but in many schools in the US, the personal viewpoints of teachers would create anything but what I consider a firm base.  Sadly, the same is true of some parents.  Given the choice, I would
leave the biology and health portions to the shared effort, and preserve the rest as a parental prerogative.

How would you test or measure a teacher's ability to teach sexuality?  What if the teacher holds viewpoints contrary to your own?  We know that laws can be passed, curricula approved, pedagogical materials provided...
but a tone of voice and a facial expression can go a long way in showing approval or disapproval.

Suppose a sexual education teaching plan says lots of things you agree with, but the teacher coughs and grimaces when presenting parts of it?  Kids are not stupid.  They will know that such a teacher does not agree with the material being presented.


----------



## Joca

Chaska Ñawi said:


> In my experience, this undoubtedly means that her friends (and maybe teachers as well) had a hand in educating her. (You haven't mentioned your wife's involvement in the education.) She also presumably learned something from books and movies.
> 
> Being a closet weirdo who sleeps with the fishes  , I'm happy to see my children exposed to many different perspectives - to learn from conversations with my husband and me, to learn with and from their friends, and from the examples of other adults. We have gay friends, straight friends, single friends .... and the children learn about relationships from all of them, whether they are aware of it or not. I would hate to think that their ideas of relationships and sexuality were shaped entirely by two people.
> 
> More and more Canadian kids seem to be watching very explicit sex on the computer screen, and forming many of their ideas of sex from what they watch. I'd hope that before they reach that point they've at least had a firm base created by parents AND teachers, and are able to tell the difference between loving relationships, entertainment, and partners as objects rather than partners.
> 
> If we as a society don't give our children the information they need, they will create their own myths .... which is why so many girls thought they could get pregnant by kissing, or that they were dying when their first period came.


 
I think I can relate to this post. I believe in the force of community, although I am afraid the notion of community gets lost more and more every day. 

I also think that children need both parents and tecahers AND if I may add a forgotten word: mentors. Mentors are perhaps better than teachers and unfortunately not all parents are prepared to be mentor. So mentor is a third essential category.

JC


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> How would you test or measure a teacher's ability to teach sexuality? What if the teacher holds viewpoints contrary to your own? We know that laws can be passed, curricula approved, pedagogical materials provided...
> but a tone of voice and a facial expression can go a long way in showing approval or disapproval.
> 
> Suppose a sexual education teaching plan says lots of things you agree with, but the teacher coughs and grimaces when presenting parts of it? Kids are not stupid. They will know that such a teacher does not agree with the material being presented.


Kids desperately want to please their teachers and a nod is much more than a wink to a wide eyed kid.

.,,


----------



## .   1

Chaska Ñawi said:


> In my experience, this undoubtedly means that her friends


We were aware of who her friends were and we all three of us discussed this issue at length. The amount of misinformation available from her friends was a fascinating repeat of the same inane tosh my mates tried to tell me when I was a kid.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
There is so much self justification in any public pronouncements regarding sexuality that I am suspicious of them all.



Chaska Ñawi said:


> (and maybe teachers as well) had a hand in educating her.


Yup.
In her first High School my daughter and her entire Year 8 class of about 210 was taken to the basketball stadium where they were required to respond to a list of twenty qustions by moving from one end of the basketball court to the other to indicate yes or no. Here are some of the questions.
It is good for boys to masturbate?
It is bad for girls to masturbate?
Is oral sex really sex?
Is anal sex disgusting?
If a boy masturbates another boy is that homosexuality?
If a girl masturbates another girl is that lesbianism?
Is it good for a girl to be a virgin when she gets married?
Is it bad for a boy to be a virgin when he gets married?
Should a bride groom ensure that he is experienced for his bride?
Do homosexuals view relationships the same way as us?

That little exercise cost my wife and I and more importantly our very angry daughter about 3 months of extreme anguish.
She didn't want to go back to school. It took us three days to convince her. I had to go to the school and confront the teacher and the principal. I had to threaten to set my barrister loose on the school.
As Cuchuflete presciently pointed out this was of no benefit. The nods and the winks and the frownings continued and we voted with our feet and moved to another town.
The main thing that my kid needed to know was that she had stood at the right end for all of the negatively worded questions.




Chaska Ñawi said:


> (You haven't mentioned your wife's involvement in the education.)


Sometimes I give too little information.
When our daughter was 12 we noticed mood swings.
She would become very aggressive and easily distracted and seemed to be constantly edgy. I guessed why but had no idea about what to do. I have no sister.
My wife is no mug and she knew exactly what the problem was. Me and the missus had a quick conversation and the wife gave the tin lid a vibrator and told her how to use it. Problem instantly solved. Happy little girl returned.



Chaska Ñawi said:


> She also presumably learned something from books and movies.


Yup.
We debriefed her after many a movie from Hollywood and after listening to songs like, 'Hit me baby just one more time to show me that you really love me'. Eeech.



Chaska Ñawi said:


> Being a closet weirdo who sleeps with the fishes  , I'm happy to see my children exposed to many different perspectives - to learn from conversations with my husband and me, to learn with and from their friends, and from the examples of other adults. We have gay friends, straight friends, single friends .... and the children learn about relationships from all of them, whether they are aware of it or not. I would hate to think that their ideas of relationships and sexuality were shaped entirely by two people.


Many different perspectives do not have the power to give her a dreaded 'B' on an assignment. Or frown at the kids when it comes to school assesment time or when to choose a School Captain or who gets to do an emu bob.
Teachers are _parents in absentia_.
The emotional control that teachers hold over students is so well recognised in Australia that the Age of Consent of 16 is raised to 17 in the case of a teacher or step-parent.
Teachers are small gods in the eyes of the students.



Chaska Ñawi said:


> More and more Canadian kids seem to be watching very explicit sex on the computer screen, and forming many of their ideas of sex from what they watch. I'd hope that before they reach that point they've at least had a firm base created by parents AND teachers, and are able to tell the difference between loving relationships, entertainment, and partners as objects rather than partners.


Dunno about Canuk kids and not much about Aussie kids but I know that my kid did not access anything like that.
She tripped over a few weird things but we had a chat and she was cool.



Chaska Ñawi said:


> If we as a society don't give our children the information they need, they will create their own myths .... which is why so many girls thought they could get pregnant by kissing, or that they were dying when their first period came.


Dunno about society and such.
All I can say is that your final paragraph seems to be a fine argument to confine sexual education to the two people who have nothing but the welfare of the child at heart. The parents.
Maybe if society didn't interfere so much with sexual education these stupid myths and fears would have no toehold.
In any event the final arbiter as far as my daughter has been concerned has been her parents and this has suited us just fine.
All she needed to know was that any time she needed to know something she could ask us.

That part of life is not very complicated.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> How would you test or measure a teacher's ability to teach sexuality?



How would you test or measure a teacher's ability to teach - say philosophy or gymnastics?
If the students haven't picked up the basics of the subject after a year or two is that because the teacher is bad/doing it wrongly or is it because the students don't want to learn or are not trying hard enough?

If a child isn't grasping Maths is that the teacher's fault or might the child be just thick?

We don't know enough about many any of the subjects our son studied in school so we let the teachers do it. we monitored his progress and augmented things we felt he had been short-changed on for whatever reason. In many other life-matter areas we did the job as best we could and the school rounded out bits we were deficient on. 

Teaching children is a partnership between the parents and the school. 

As in any partnership there are instances where one or other party don't meet their responsibilities. We all know of them. The parents who sent a child through 12 years of an education system and never attended a Parent/Teacher meeting, nor looked at one item of homework in a supervisory capacity — and the other side of the partnership, the teacher who cannot even bother to know your child's name, nor has a constructive comment on why they might be falling behind in xyz.

Too many people see education as a thing they delegate to others to do to their children - I cannot understand the thinking behind this. My greatest achievement in my life was to be able to say at our son's 21st birthday "This is my beloved son, I am well pleased." We have had a hand in turning out a man who is a better and more rounded person than either of his parents were at his age. His teachers played a major part in this. Had he been at a different school, I know, he would be a different person - and I doubt he would be a better one than he is now.

How did we handle sex education? Well we didn't do a 'session' where we told him 'the facts of life' - we dealt with his questions as they arose, in an manner compatible with his ability to grasp what we were discussing. He was never behind the door when it came to asking any question which occurred to him and my wife and I had agreed long before that we would answer all questions honestly - even the Santa Claus one, when it finally came. 
I do remember that much of our work in sex education was in dealing with the ill-begotten rumours and half-correct 'knowledge' which circulates in any boys' school about sex and relationships - but this was done in dribs and drabs when he would start a sentence with "Mannix says that .... ", or "Aaron told me that .... ".


----------



## JamesM

> Perhaps you should lay your cards on the table and display the reason that you accused me of aggression.


 
I think to characterize anyone's opinion as a "fine hair-splitting" is a characterization that is dismissive and aggressive.  Apparently you don't.  

"What am I doing wrong?" places the entire conversation on a personal level.  That is aggressive to me.  It moves the conversation from topical to personal.  I quoted you to show what I was responding to.  I quite often take a while to compose my posts and by the time I hit the "Post Quick Reply" button there are several intervening posts.  I find this works for me.  It may not for you.

Although I quoted you, I never indicated that I thought anything _you_ did was wrong.  I tried to move it back to the topic, but I was also frustrated by the repeated experience here of "religion" being a taboo word, even when the person speaking speaks responsibly about his own beliefs and does not presume anyone else should take them on.

There's the source of my "base canards."  I think it might be best if I simply did not engage with you on topics.  We do not seem to play well together.


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> Although I quoted you, I never indicated that I thought anything _you_ did was wrong. I tried to move it back to the topic, *but I was also frustrated by the repeated experience here of "religion" being a taboo word,* even when the person speaking speaks responsibly about his own beliefs and does not presume anyone else should take them on.
> 
> There's the source of my "base canards." I think it might be best if I simply did not engage with you on topics. We do not seem to play well together.


Note the bold.
James,
You have just said that you were responding with frustration because of previous experiences you have had when discussing religion here. Do you not see a pattern?

It is not fair to gripe at me in this thread about sexual education because people do not understand you about religion in other places.

Your own statement shows that you are aware of the dangers of discussing religion yet you also confirm that you persist in discussing your religion.

If I put my grandmother up as the source of my opinions and someone disagrees with those opinions it is not right for me to then take umbridge at the fact that my grandmother has been disrespected. If I want to cite granny as a source then I must accept that granny is going to be weighed in the balance and if found wanting her opinions will be like writings in the sand.

This particular butting of foreheads over religion is an excellent example of the logic of the argument of keeping religion and public education out of sexual education.
I am utterly sure that many correspondents here would be horrified were I to be granted the power to teach sexual education in your schools.

All I need do is complete a short bridging course I would then possess more than enough qualifications to be accredited as a public school teacher. Would my views on sexual education clash with the views that you want to pass along to your kids?
Do you think that I may be clever and subtle enough to read whatever textbook you would give me and still pass my subliminal messages to enquiring minds?
I could read straight from the Ku Klux Klan's handbook and tell the kids that Jewish people are the greatest thing since sliced bread.
It is all in the phraseing and verbal punctuation and the raised eyebrow and the wiped forehead and the pained expression and the choking voice and the Oh My God expression on the face or the rubbing of a remembered pain or a little bitty tear let me down.

You hold very valid views on many subjects and you and I seem to have no problems playing as long as one of us stays away from religion. Which one would that be?

.,,


----------



## Amy

jonquiliser said:


> Practical things can probably be sorted out pretty quickly: condoms are 99% safe, be careful not to break them, there are contraceptive pills [for women; why not for men? ], etc etc. The personal side of sex, instead, is interesting, but also difficult, especially for young people. Why not help them on their ways?


 

just to add - in my current textbook on maternal-newborn health care,
"use of condoms during heterosexual intercourse results in 80% reduction in HIV incidence... condom use does not eliminate the risk of HIV transmission"
and
about contraceptives for men - studies are under way using weekly injections of testosterone enanthate (TE), and a combination injection of TE and DMPA is also under way, and study is under way on the feasibility of subdermal implants containing gonadotropin-releasing hormone and an androgen.
As for vasectomy - there is the problem of recanalization (spontaneous reanastomosis - reconnecting)


----------



## Musical Chairs

jonquiliser said:


> Isn't there a world of difference between sexually relevant and sexual? There is nothing sexual in having your period, but of course it is relevant in some sense to sexuality whether you have it or not. Time is also sexually relevant, if you don't have time to have sex, you won't have sex. Time is not sexual.
> 
> I believe there is a widespread tradition of reducing sex - when it comes to sexual education for young people - to reproduction. I imagine it has to do with embarrassment or difficulties on the part of teachers to deal with such a delicate matter. Especially, in the case of girls, sexuality is sometimes equaled to (the beginning of) menses, pregnancy, childbirth etc. It is as if sexuality, when it comes to girls, is supposed to mean "being sexy". What about sexual pleasure? It is "normal" that boys masturbate, but the silence around female masturbation is more compact.
> 
> I believe sexual education should actually talk about sex - what it can be like when you have sex, how sex have been considered, ideas and preconceptions the kids may have, expectations etc. Heteronormativity should obviously be dealt with. And also, there should be discussion around how girls and boys/women and men have different expectations on them.
> 
> Practical things can probably be sorted out pretty quickly: condoms are 99% safe, be careful not to break them, there are contraceptive pills [for women; why not for men? ], etc etc. The personal side of sex, instead, is interesting, but also difficult, especially for young people. Why not help them on their ways?



I'm not going to read all the other posts here because it would take too long, but:

As a teenager myself, I can say that in high school (in the US), sex ed was on the whole very objective. They taught the logistics of sex like the menstrual cycle, childbirth, how you develop secondary sex characteristics, how an egg is fertilized, how to protect yourself from STDs, etc but didn't focus as much on homosexuality, masturbation, or other aspects of sex like what guys find attractive about girls and vice versa (though they were mentioned or discussed to some extent).

In this way, I agree that the sexual education I knew does reduce sex to reproduction. I think it's sad, because there's so much to sex besides the menstrual cycle and that the penis goes into the vagina. I've been to the Planned Parenthood site, and I liked the way they presented sex more than they did in school. I thought it should be taught more like that, with the option being available for parents to opt their children from particular subjects if they want. I don't agree with Bush's abstinence only education, though I do agree that it should be made clear that abstinence is the only 100% effective protection against pregnancy and STDs (because it's true).

I also think that teachers and parents encourage sex's image as embarassing, shameful, etc. when *they* are too embarassed or ashamed to talk about all that it encompasses, though I think this often reflects how they were brought up. In my opinion, I think parents should be very truthful about sex to their kids; that masturbation is fine, and where a baby really comes from (not from the stork or just from God (I really hope this doesn't start a fight about religion)), even if they're only 5 years old because sexuality is a natural, and for most people, a very important part of being human. I thinnk it would help them to be more confident and comfortable with themselves when they grow up. But I think it's hard for it to change into this because there are longstanding stigmas associated with sex.


----------



## JamesM

. said:


> Note the bold.
> James,
> You have just said that you were responding with frustration because of previous experiences you have had when discussing religion here. Do you not see a pattern?
> 
> It is not fair to gripe at me in this thread about sexual education because people do not understand you about religion in other places.



I cannot respond without dragging us further off-topic.  I also understand that private messaging is not an option.  I think there is no possible way to respond further and remain within the rules of the forum.

----

Regarding sex education, I agree with you, as I've said before, that there is not enough consensus in any community I know that would allow sex education in schools to approach topics beyond the biological.  I take it that you prefer no discussion of the biological aspects as well, just on the principle that the public education should not be involved in this aspect of our lives.  I'm not sure what I think about that.  I would have to think about it some more.  On the surface, I don't see a problem with disseminating the information, but you are right that an awful lot can be communicated "unofficially" in the process.


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> I cannot respond without dragging us further off-topic. I also understand that private messaging is not an option. I think there is no possible way to respond further and remain within the rules of the forum.


Start a new thread.
Lay it on the line in a thread where it can not be off topic.
Let's clear the air in the open.

.,,


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

. said:


> In her first High School my daughter and her entire Year 8 class of about 210 was taken to the basketball stadium where they were required to respond to a list of twenty qustions by moving from one end of the basketball court to the other to indicate yes or no. Here are some of the questions.
> It is good for boys to masturbate?
> It is bad for girls to masturbate?
> Is oral sex really sex?
> Is anal sex disgusting?
> If a boy masturbates another boy is that homosexuality?
> If a girl masturbates another girl is that lesbianism?
> Is it good for a girl to be a virgin when she gets married?
> Is it bad for a boy to be a virgin when he gets married?
> Should a bride groom ensure that he is experienced for his bride?
> Do homosexuals view relationships the same way as us?



I spent a while trying to figure out where on earth the school was going with this exercise.  It took my husband about two seconds, though - he said that they were creating a scatter plot to demonstrate that human sexuality is all over the map.

Who knew?


----------



## Musical Chairs

That's a strange exercise. They should've explained why instead of just yes/no, then it would've meant more.


----------



## cuchuflete

I disagree with your husband, and so does the person to whom I showed this.  My companion is firm in the belief that the list of questions was designed to show that the school administrators and teaching staff are narrow-minded bigots, and have no business attempting anything so complex as teaching sexuality.  

Take for example the last question in the list:  Do *they* view relationships the same way as *us*?

Clearly that is a declaration that the teachers and administrators involved are trumpeting their own flavor
of sexual preference, and labelling all others as outsiders.  

On further reflection, your husband may be right.  Pernicious bigots are all over the map.  Some of them
have the power to join in the shared responsibility of teaching children.  Scary thought!


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I'd forgotten about that last question when I mentioned it to him.  

On third thought, I think that I'll return to my first thought - that I too would have come down on the school like the fury of the Valkyrie.


----------



## maxiogee

What age are pupils in year 8 in Australia? 11? 12? 13?
Is it possible that standing out in a basketball stadium is the first place they hear about oral sex and/or anal sex? 
It seems a strange place for such a topic to first come to the mind of a recently- or pre-pubescent child.


----------



## CrazyArcher

That's what I thought too. What was the point to take them to a stadium? Not to mention that I find the questions rather bizzare... What was the point behind all that?


----------



## .   1

Chaska Ñawi said:


> On third thought, I think that I'll return to my first thought - that I too would have come down on the school like the fury of the Valkyrie.


My wife wouldn't let me.  I was beside myself.  I stood nose to nose with the Physical Education Teacher and then the Principal and neither of those 'men' are in any doubt that I know what was going on.
If an association has a particular barrow to push the best way to do it is with the youth.  First confuse them about your pet issue and then slide in with your particular views.

It was the last question that broke our daughter's back.  It also made us think that she may be gay but this is not the case.  It had nothing to do with her sexuality at all.  She was horrified at the hate portrayed.

.,,


----------



## tvdxer

jonquiliser said:


> Isn't there a world of difference between sexually relevant and sexual? There is nothing sexual in having your period, but of course it is relevant in some sense to sexuality whether you have it or not. Time is also sexually relevant, if you don't have time to have sex, you won't have sex. Time is not sexual.
> 
> I believe there is a widespread tradition of reducing sex - when it comes to sexual education for young people - to reproduction. I imagine it has to do with embarrassment or difficulties on the part of teachers to deal with such a delicate matter. Especially, in the case of girls, sexuality is sometimes equaled to (the beginning of) menses, pregnancy, childbirth etc. It is as if sexuality, when it comes to girls, is supposed to mean "being sexy". What about sexual pleasure? It is "normal" that boys masturbate, but the silence around female masturbation is more compact.
> 
> I believe sexual education should actually talk about sex - what it can be like when you have sex, how sex have been considered, ideas and preconceptions the kids may have, expectations etc. Heteronormativity should obviously be dealt with. And also, there should be discussion around how girls and boys/women and men have different expectations on them.
> 
> Practical things can probably be sorted out pretty quickly: condoms are 99% safe, be careful not to break them, there are contraceptive pills [for women; why not for men? ], etc etc. The personal side of sex, instead, is interesting, but also difficult, especially for young people. Why not help them on their ways?



I do not believe in contraception or pre-marital sex, so I think abstinence-only education is the way to go.  Whether it is more or less effective I am not sure; but it is not right to do the immoral in order to get a moral result.

Young people can wait until marriage to discover the "personal side" of sex.  If they don't, that's their problem.


----------



## CrazyArcher

tvdxer said:


> Young people can wait until marriage to discover the "personal side" of sex.  If they don't, that's their problem.



That's harsh...

Besides, I don't believe in educating abstience. If people really want it, they'll do it anyway. It's a question of personal preference, and you can't indoctrinate one point of view while neglecting another.


----------



## Musical Chairs

Why do you think contraception and pre-marital sex are immoral?

Many young people WILL have sex regardless of if they are taught that abstinence-only is the way to go. I know a bunch of people who said that they wouldn't have sex until they married (mostly for religious reasons)--- but once they got a boyfriend/girlfriend, that changed!

And there is evidence that abstinence-only education doesn't work, because people have sex and if they don't know about the consequences of not using contraception, there are more STDs spread and more unwanted pregnancies.

I haven't had sex because I haven't met anyone I wanted to have sex with, not because I'm actually waiting for marriage to have sex. If I do have sex before marriage and use protection, how is that my "problem?"


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> Young people can wait until marriage to discover the "personal side" of sex. If they don't, that's their problem.


Nope!
It's our problem.
What a dreadfully dismissive attitude toward our youth and the babies of our youth who are going to grow up with the full knowledge of what attitudes like that have done to them.  Those babies had nothing to do with the mistakes made by a couple of fumbling teenagers but if the babies are abandoned by society they will grow up to bight our ankles off.
I do hope that your attitudes have no sway over anybody who has any authority over any person under the age of thirty.
Mistakes happen in every facet of human existence and society is there to pick up the pieces.

.,,
We are all in this mess together.


----------



## curly

Hello 

I'd like to add a little question if nobody minds.

Do you think that rape, and what to do in case of rape, should be given time in sex/ual education?

I personally think that this would be a very good thing to have somewhere sometime whether by teachers or parents. I think that the problems with awareness campaigns are that they're too general and don't give enough information.


----------



## .   1

Musical Chairs said:


> If I do have sex before marriage and use protection, how is that my "problem?"


It is only a problem for the narrow minded contemplating eternity but not realising that they don't even have enough to occupy them in the here and now so they feel a pornographic compulsion to constantly don their rubber robes and interfere in the lives of people who actually have a life.

.,,


----------



## tvdxer

. said:


> Nope!
> It's our problem.
> What a dreadfully dismissive attitude toward our youth and the babies of our youth who are going to grow up with the full knowledge of what attitudes like that have done to them.  Those babies had nothing to do with the mistakes made by a couple of fumbling teenagers but if the babies are abandoned by society they will grow up to bight our ankles off.
> I do hope that your attitudes have no sway over anybody who has any authority over any person under the age of thirty.
> Mistakes happen in every facet of human existence and society is there to pick up the pieces.
> 
> .,,
> We are all in this mess together.



I was referring to what the original poster called the "personal side of sex", which I believe he meant to mean how to make it more pleasurable, etc. (though I may have misunderstood him or her)  That has no place in public education, and why one would even propose to waste time with such matters in the classroom confuses me.


----------



## .   1

curly said:


> Hello
> 
> I'd like to add a little question if nobody minds.
> 
> Do you think that rape, and what to do in case of rape, should be given time in sex/ual education?
> 
> I personally think that this would be a very good thing to have somewhere sometime whether by teachers or parents. I think that the problems with awareness campaigns are that they're too general and don't give enough information.


Rape has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with the base compulsion to dominate and destroy.
Men don't rape.  Men crush 'men' who rape.
Rapists are cowards and wreckers who have no idea about sexuality and have no place in this conversation.

.,,


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> I was referring to what the original poster called the "personal side of sex", which I believe he meant to mean how to make it more pleasurable, etc. (though I may have misunderstood him or her) That has no place in public education, and why one would even propose to waste time with such matters in the classroom confuses me.


Jeeze, you have a hell of a way with words.
OK, I'll play.
Why should sexual education not involve matters sexual rather than just matters biological?
When John the Virgin beds Maureen the Virgin who gives them the clue that it can be fun?
Clitoris and G spot and foreplay and mutual exchange to go to places two may go but none go alone.
This is an essential part of sexual education.  Such knowledge is not instinctive.

.,,


----------



## curly

It's sexually significant, much like periods and wetdreams. It's relevant, in my opinion, because it can have the same results. It's seems like a reasonable time to raise the issues with students.


----------



## Musical Chairs

curly said:


> Hello
> 
> I'd like to add a little question if nobody minds.
> 
> Do you think that rape, and what to do in case of rape, should be given time in sex/ual education?
> 
> I personally think that this would be a very good thing to have somewhere sometime whether by teachers or parents. I think that the problems with awareness campaigns are that they're too general and don't give enough information.



In my sex ed class, we did talk about rape and what to do if you are raped or if someone you know is raped.

Once I got to college, we had an assembly on sexual assault and resources we can turn to (hotlines, etc) if we need. Also, sometimes people who have been raped or who experienced it someone give speeches to share what it was like for them.

I think it's important to discuss rape in sex ed classes.


----------



## .   1

curly said:


> It's sexually significant, much like periods and wetdreams. It's relevant, in my opinion, because it can have the same results. It's seems like a reasonable time to raise the issues with students.


Rape is not sexually significant.  Most women will never be raped.  Rape is a base and violent crime that just happens to involve a parody of sex.
Many rapists do not ejaculate into or onto their victims.
Many rapists do not penetrate their victims with the rapists body.  An object is often employed instead.
Rapists are damaged and deranged individuals.

What would you teach kids about rape as part of their sexual education?

.,,


----------



## Musical Chairs

. said:


> Rape is not sexually significant.  Most women will never be raped.  Rape is a base and violent crime that just happens to involve a parody of sex.
> Many rapists do not ejaculate into or onto their victims.
> Many rapists do not penetrate their victims with the rapists body.  An object is often employed instead.
> Rapists are damaged and deranged individuals.
> 
> What would you teach kids about rape as part of their sexual education?
> 
> .,,



Because apparently it happens a lot more often than people think. Most cases are never reported because people are too ashamed or embarassed to talk about it. The statistics I heard at my school were pretty high; they said 1/4 women have been sexually assaulted by the time they graduate (though I have no idea what these stats are based on).

It doesn't matter if the rapist impregnantes the individual or not --- the harm is done either way. When people are emotionally ruined, it takes a huge toll on their lives.


----------



## .   1

Musical Chairs said:


> Because apparently it happens a lot more often than people think. Most cases are never reported because people are too ashamed or embarassed to talk about it.


The reason that victims don't report rape is precisely because of this missassociation with rape.
Rape is not and never will be sexual.
When we start talking about as being a criminal assault and not a sexual encounter more victims will feel empowered to help us crush their predator.

So we joined you on your mean streets
tracked and trapped you fair and square
when a victim used our system
told us when to go and where

.,,


----------



## Musical Chairs

. said:


> The reason that victims don't report rape is precisely because of this missassociation with rape.
> Rape is not and never will be sexual.
> When we start talking about as being a criminal assault and not a sexual encounter more victims will feel empowered to help us crush their predator.
> 
> So we joined you on your mean streets
> tracked and trapped you fair and square
> when a victim used our system
> told us when to go and where
> 
> .,,



I don't agree. If the definition of rape is actual intercourse, then *maybe* most cases aren't actual rape but it's still sexual. It's both a criminal assault and (an emotionally devastating) sexual encounter.

Oral sex is not actual sex, but it's still sexual. And sexual assault can be just as bad as rape, if not worse.


----------



## curly

One of the purposes of sex ed. is to dispell common misperceptions about sex. I think rape falls into that category of things that people have odd notions aobut.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:


> I do not believe in contraception or pre-marital sex, ...
> 
> Young people can wait until marriage to discover the "personal side" of sex.  If they don't, that's their problem.



Let's assume that the author of the words above is not a total hypocrite, is not married, has not been previously married, and therefore has no personal knowledge of sex or of sexuality.  Would you trust your child's education to such a font of ignorance?  

If you believe that churches and states have no business in approving one's choice of partner, and the manner in which partnerships exist, then the entire distinction between pre-marital and marital sex has the substance of thin smoke.  

I suppose that there are those who will insist on discovering, on their wedding night, some of the things that provide a partner with no pleasure at all.  Such egotists are welcome to pair off and leave the rest of humanity to its joyful sharing.



tvdxer said:


> I was referring to what the original poster called the "personal side of sex", which I believe he meant to mean how to make it more pleasurable, etc. (though I may have misunderstood him or her)  That has no place in public education, and why one would even propose to waste time with such matters in the classroom confuses me.


  I agree that public education should focus on anatomy, biology, and health aspects of sex, and leave the related matters of why and how and when to family education.  That is far from giving the task to school employees, who may be coerced to include much foolishness, and omit much good substance from their teaching, to do the job properly.


----------



## .   1

Rape is no longer a legal word in Australia. It has been replaced by Sexual Assault Catagory 1, Sexual Assault Catagory 2, Sexual Assault Catagory 3 and Sexual Assault Catagory 4.
Rape is a woird based on the Latin _rapere_ to seize.

Education about rape should most definitely be on the School curriculum but not as part of Sexual Education. As a seperate and distinct issue it is obviously an important concern but young people should not be confused about rape. Rape is an horrendous crime perpetuated by subquality 'humans' who look like us and sound almost like us but view us through the terrified eyes of the perpetual outsider.

Who Stalks What​ 
What are you afraid of as you walk a snarling dog are there dropbears are they hoopsnakes or a witches' spell filled frog​ 
Do dragons hide in bushes are there werebears everywhere when you walk with paranoia oozing only lonely tears​ 
Will a yowie growl and get you do moonspiders fill your hair may the boogy man destroy you if you do not stare with fear​ 
Are you dimly even able to look beyond your fog is there light within your attic as you as you walk a snarling dog​ 
Are you so deep in anger so far from us and gone to think that we will always let you walk a snarling dog​ 
Is a cretin or a moron one a frightened snarling dog enough to keep us all down hiding deep within a bog​ 
May be yes and might be no dear might be there or over here as you stalk your paranoia with your dripping stinking fear​ 
All wish each walked as just one self yet I mock you as I can while your anger and fake power last until you meet a man​ 
.,,​


----------



## tvdxer

. said:


> Jeeze, you have a hell of a way with words.
> OK, I'll play.
> Why should sexual education not involve matters sexual rather than just matters biological?
> When John the Virgin beds Maureen the Virgin who gives them the clue that it can be fun?
> Clitoris and G spot and foreplay and mutual exchange to go to places two may go but none go alone.
> This is an essential part of sexual education.  Such knowledge is not instinctive.
> 
> .,,



If two fornicators want to know that information, they can look it up.  There's the internet, Wikipedia, and about half of the titles at a typical magazine stand.  

It's not the school's job to teach them.  I know I would not want my children being taught how to have fun in bed when I disapprove of them losing their innocence before marriage.  Not only that, but I would much rather have time wasted on telling boys how to navigate a girl's anatomy spent on more valuable subjects, of which there are many.


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> If two fornicators want to know that information, they can look it up. There's the internet, Wikipedia, and about half of the titles at a typical magazine stand.


 Ooohh, fornicators.  What a gorgeous word.  You're letting your dog collar show.  That word has a tub thumping, welking ringing, bible bashing tone to it.



tvdxer said:


> It's not the school's job to teach them. I know I would not want my children being taught how to have fun in bed when I disapprove of them losing their innocence before marriage. Not only that, but I would much rather have time wasted on telling boys how to navigate a girl's anatomy spent on more valuable subjects, of which there are many.


Is there any chance that you may take a quick peek and note that my comments about the dissemination of such information follows some pretty strident comments of mine that I considered that such information should flow from parents not school teachers or god botherers.

.,,
Fornicators!  That's rich.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

tvdxer said:


> Not only that, but I would much rather have time wasted on telling boys how to navigate a girl's anatomy spent on more valuable subjects, of which there are many.



I believe that having my partner know his way around my anatomy is not just valuable, but essential...  but maybe that's just my little peculiarity.


----------



## .   1

Chaska Ñawi said:


> I believe that having my partner know his way around my anatomy is not just valuable, but essential... but maybe that's just my little peculiarity.


Yeah, I'm just trying to remember all that valuable information I got at school that was more valuable.

What is more important than a successful relationsip between husband and wife? Every little bit helps.

Sexual education is a personal and private matter and should be conducted between loving parents and their kids. Parents know best and I do not see the need for my child to be exposed to the ignorant views of strangers on this subject.

The level of arrogant ignorance displayed here by some otherwise literate people is gobsmacking.


.,,


----------



## tvdxer

. said:


> Sexual education is a personal and private matter and should be conducted between loving parents and their kids. Parents know best and I do not see the need for my child to be exposed to the ignorant views of strangers on this subject.
> .,,



I agree.


----------



## Kajjo

jonquiliser said:


> Isn't there a world of difference between sexually relevant and sexual?


Absolutely, yes! But "relevance" is a better criterion to create a curriculum than pure sexual content, I believe.



> I believe there is a widespread tradition of reducing sex - when it comes to sexual education for young people - to reproduction.


Yes, you are right. However, I believe it is OK to focus sexual education on the bodily changes and reproduction. Please, what exactly you want to teach as non-reproductive sexual education? Sex positions with practical excercises?

More important, I believe that the non-reproductive aspects of sexuality are a very private matter as far as the parents' opinions are concerned. I would not like my child to be taught any repressive or old-fashioned things, but that is my personal decision. I am certain that I can teach sexuality better to my own child than any teachers. The same applies to religion or politics. Such subjects can only be taught if keeping strictly to hard facts -- no proselytising in sexuality, religion and politics! Let the parents do their job.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

. said:


> In her first High School my daughter and her entire Year 8 class of about 210 was taken to the basketball stadium
> It is good for boys to masturbate?
> It is bad for girls to masturbate?
> Is oral sex really sex?
> Is anal sex disgusting?
> If a boy masturbates another boy is that homosexuality?
> If a girl masturbates another girl is that lesbianism?
> Is it good for a girl to be a virgin when she gets married?
> Is it bad for a boy to be a virgin when he gets married?
> Should a bride groom ensure that he is experienced for his bride?
> Do homosexuals view relationships the same way as us?


Did the teachers provide model answers? I really have no idea what they expected. This story is explanation enough to ban sexual education from school. It's no good. I want to teach my childen what I believe is correct.



> When our daughter was 12 we noticed mood swings. She would become very aggressive and easily distracted and seemed to be constantly edgy. My wife is no mug and she knew exactly what the problem was. Wife gave the tin lid a vibrator and told her how to use it. Problem instantly solved. Happy little girl returned.


Nice story. I will remember that. Have you ever tried this approach with colleagues? There are some women around that should have free access to the same treatment urgently!

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

. said:
			
		

> I often have sex just for pleasure, what am I doing wrong? (according to these religions)





JamesM said:


> I'd just like to say that I don't think any of these religions teach that the pleasure of sex is immoral, rather that seeking sex _merely_ for pleasure is immoral.  There is quite a difference.





			
				JamesM said:
			
		

> If the person we are having sex with is only a means to an end, our gratification, then I believe that my religion teaches that this is not a moral sexual situation.


I cannot follow your concept of argumentation, James. In the vast majority of sexual relations the partners have sex with each other because they _both _derive pleasure from _it_ and from _each other_. One partner is not merely object or means to the other one's gratification, but they _both_ enjoy sex. Where is the problem? Sex has nothing to do with "being an object", it has to do with biological satisfaction and mutual pleasure. Humans are meant to have sex. Humans are meant to enjoy sex.

Kajjo


----------



## .   1

Kajjo said:


> I cannot follow your concept of argumentation, James. In the vast majority of sexual relations the partners have sex with each other because they _both _derive pleasure from _it_ and from _each other_. One partner is not merely object or means to the other one's gratification, but they _both_ enjoy sex. Where is the problem? Sex has nothing to do with "being an object", it has to do with biological satisfaction and mutual pleasure. Humans are meant to have sex. Humans are meant to enjoy sex.


I am pleased that I am not the only one confused by these opinions.  

.,,
I was beginning to think that I am crazier than I am.


----------



## JamesM

Kajjo said:


> I cannot follow your concept of argumentation, James. In the vast majority of sexual relations the partners have sex with each other because they _both _derive pleasure from _it_ and from _each other_. One partner is not merely object or means to the other one's gratification, but they _both_ enjoy sex. Where is the problem? Sex has nothing to do with "being an object", it has to do with biological satisfaction and mutual pleasure. Humans are meant to have sex. Humans are meant to enjoy sex.
> 
> Kajjo


 
And I'd say the vast majority of sexual relations would fall into the "moral" category, in my understanding of the term.  If I gave some other impression, I apologize.


----------



## jonquiliser

Kajjo, as far as sexual positions go, I do think it is - for example - in place to disperse some common confusions, such as taking certain postures as standard (I'll let you guess for yourself). I know in Sweden there was a video made, with actual situations of sex. Doesn't seem such a bad idea to me. There are all the ideas that boys want to have sex all the time, and that girls have to go along with boys because otherwise the boys will get bored. Or that if a boy ejaculates and orgasms, the girl immediately does too. Or that all sex is between a man and a woman. Or that penetrative heterosex is paradigmatic sex, and all else more or less perversions or "almost-sex-but not". Perhaps a little note that it shouldn't be that girls have to shout NO at the top of their lungs continuously lest they be raped, because boys are not just unstoppable machines, and should (and can) actually be sensitive to others. Etc ad infinitum. Seem to me like urgent enough topics to discuss.

Of course "no-reproductive sex" is very personal - that's my very point. And that "kind" of sex is probably the vast majority of all sex. Talking about reproduction as if it were sex automatically excludes, for example, homosexual relations. Is that sensible? A just picture of sex? To reinforce a heterosexual norm just because. I do take it to be important that young people can actually get answers to questions they may have, and preparedness for issues that many of them will encounter at some point. I saw some people in this thread stated they disagree with sex before marriage - I don't question this, if some people feel that's right for them, fine. But the point of sexual education is NOT to say whether or not you should have sex. Everyone has to decide for themselves. And whether you decide to wait til you're married, the info will come in handy once you're in the marital bed. It is just as messy, confusing, unexpected to have sex after marriage, as if you have it before. There's no guarantee for romantic, superduperultrahype sex just because you've waited...  I know whatever will be said in school, some parents will disagree with. I think the best for kids is to get info from different places. Sexual education (and the same with school in general) isn't a substitute for dialogue between child(ren) and parent(s) - but not all kids are lucky enough to have good schools or good parents, and a variety of sources is probably a safer way to go. And of course, as someone mentioned, the embarrassment factor in relation to parents is real..!

As for rape, the only place I can see for it in sexual education, is to emphasise that it is NOT sex! It is about violence and domination, and if it is mentioned, it should be with an urge to boys not to rape (instead of the eternal blame put on girls and women - after all, men are [usually] the rapists, and most of them have gone to school somewhere)


----------



## Kajjo

jonquiliser said:


> Kajjo, as far as sexual positions go, I do think it is - for example - in place to disperse some common confusions, such as taking certain postures as standard


 Hm, maybe I have a different view of what schools are for. I did not learn in school about how to wash, how to eat, how to have sex, how to properly clothe etc. Parents can teach and educate in these areas quite good and no one really has _to learn_ sexual positions anyway. I guess these things come quite automatically to everyone -- or are humans dumber than the average animal? I think it is a gross misunderstanding that children need to learn how to masturbate, how to have sex and what practices are possible. They just don't. If young adults want to spice up their sex life, plenty of media are available for all tastes.



> I know whatever will be said in school, some parents will disagree with.


That's right. But I am opposed to proselytising in politics, religion, sexuality, personal beliefs. I do not trust teachers to keep strictly to facts and not, consciously or unconsciously, influence pupils and convey their personal opinions. I prefer schools to keep to facts and knowledge.

Kajjo


----------



## Joca

jonquiliser said:


> ... And of course, as someone mentioned, the embarrassment factor in relation to parents is real..!


 
Yes, this is very very true. When I was a 12 or 13 year-old boy, my good and well-meaning faher took me to the doctor. I was not ill at the time. Guess what? The doctor only examined me and then gave me a short lecture on masturbation. There was no such thing as sexual education at the time. I don't know if the doctor had previously agreed to it with my dad, but if I remember well, my father nodded all the way. Well, to make it short, the doctor (fortunately not mentioning religion) told me that I should not masturbate because masturbation would lead me to physical depletion, you know. I won't tell you what I went on to do after this consultation, but this is just to say to what extreme a parent can go in his or her embarrassment to talk about sex, as if it were a subject of a world to come! I have promised to myself that I won't do the same to my children.

JC


----------



## jonquiliser

Kajjo said:


> Hm, maybe I have a different view of what schools are for. I did not learn in school about how to wash, how to eat, how to have sex, how to properly clothe etc. Parents can teach and educate in these areas quite good and no one really has _to learn_ sexual positions anyway.



Well, I don't think that either parents or teachers can teach all that much about sexual positions - what I said was that certain preconceptions are good to deal with (such as man-on-top-of-woman is what sex is). 



> That's right. But I am opposed to proselytising in politics, religion, sexuality, personal beliefs. I do not trust teachers to keep strictly to facts and not, consciously or unconsciously, influence pupils and convey their personal opinions. I prefer schools to keep to facts and knowledge.



Trouble is, we'll disagree on what constitute "facts" and "knowledge". One common confusion seems to be that if we just stick to facts, there's no conflict. But what you may see as a fact fit for school, may not be so for others. I for one don't see reproduction as representative of sex, and I believe that no matter how many facts about reproduction you spread around, you will still be giving a skewed picture of sex (penetrative heterosexual sex as paradigmatic). So it isn't as easy as "sticking to facts".  


Joca; if the doctor is advising against it, how bad must it not be then?!


----------



## Kajjo

jonquiliser said:


> Trouble is, we'll disagree on what constitute "facts" and "knowledge". One common confusion seems to be that if we just stick to facts, there's no conflict. But what you may see as a fact fit for school, may not be so for others.


I agree with you. Certainly, there will always be controversy, even about scientific facts like evolution. However, while there is a grey zone between facts and non-facts, I believe it is easy to realise that politics, religion and many other personal beliefs are non-facts. Sexuality is very personal and very much related to personal beliefs, so I figure it is best if each family deals with such subjects in their own manner. I would hate to see my children grow up with "masturbation makes stupid", "menstruation is dirty" and "wait with sex till marriage". It all depends on what the teachers or the governments decide to teach. Probably you feel sure that schools would teach modern facts -- that, however, is not certain at all. If sexuality is a school issue, it will be a political issue and politicians always had their own agenda and that changes quite a lot, too. I do not like my children to be "normalised" to "public opinions". They should neither get good marks for thinking homosexuality is absolutely normal or for seeing the advantages in waiting with sex till marriage. Neither is a fact ion itself, both are private opinions.

Kajjo


----------



## jonquiliser

Well, most of the so called indisputable facts of science, are in fact (!) not at all so indisputable. And even in cases of agreeing on the facts, we may still disagree on which facts that should be presented, or how they should be presented. I think it is important that kids understand also the variety of opinions there are, differing ways of seeing things. Politics, religion and other things may not be facts, but then, they're not non-facts either. And in many ways, they're no more fantasy-like than is much so-called science. And anyway, political and moral ideas come in not only as "subjects" (if they do at all come in as such...), they colour what we see as facts at all. This is inescapable, in school as much as elsewhere. 

When it comes to sexual education specifically - well, I do understand your concerns. But teachers are never 'perfect', the best we can get are good curricula and a variety of teachers. Sexual education shouldn't have a specific content such as "masturbation is good/bad", "you should/should not have sex before marriage" etc. But kids go through emotional and physical changes, have questions, doubts, ideas and so on. There should be room for that, also in school. School isn't just about maths, physics, English/... It's also a place where kids spend much of their time, and learn about themselves and others.


----------



## Poetic Device

Why does a school have to teach children about sexual matters?  Shouldn't that be the parents' responsability?  Who decides what the right age to start talking to a child about that is?  Doesn't that depend on the individual child?  Isn't it taken into consideration that maybe some children are ready for that sort of talk and some are not?  What happens with that?


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> Why does a school have to teach children about sexual matters? Shouldn't that be the parents' responsability? Who decides what the right age to start talking to a child about that is? Doesn't that depend on the individual child? Isn't it taken into consideration that maybe some children are ready for that sort of talk and some are not? What happens with that?


Thank you PD, finally a cogent and lucidly valid interpretation of the old saw.

The children, the children, won't someone please think of the children.

See ya mate

Robert


----------



## Blehh.

Maybe we should take the approach that Sweden takes -- start sexual education in Grade 1 and continue it up through the highest grades.

In the earlier grades, when children are younger, we should avoid explaining opinions about sexual activity; rather, we should explain what basic sexual activity is, sexual anatomy, puberty, menstruation, etc. (i.e., "the birds and the bees")

In the middle and upper grades, we should explain that there are different types of sexual activity and that there are homosexuals who engage in sexual activity. We should also explain the options available to teenagers: abstaining from sexual activity altogether or using protection while engaging in sexual activity. Protection methods should be explained in full.

Students shouldn't be swayed one way or the other, and sex education should take an objective stance when it comes to people's sex lives. Students should form their own opinions based on the information they have received from sex education programs. Parents should also play a role in guiding a young person's opinions and values about sex.

PS: Poetic Device, the sad reality is that many parents often don't talk about sex with their children at all -- a lack of education is more dangerous than anything. Plus, schools are designed to make students into informed, responsible citizens. This includes educating them about their bodies and how to take care of them.


----------



## jonquiliser

Blehh. said:


> Maybe we should take the approach that Sweden takes -- start sexual education in Grade 1 and continue it up through the highest grades.
> 
> In the earlier grades, when children are younger, we should avoid explaining opinions about sexual activity; rather, we should explain what basic sexual activity is, sexual anatomy, puberty, menstruation, etc. (i.e., "the birds and the bees")
> 
> In the middle and upper grades, we should explain that there are different types of sexual activity and that there are homosexuals who engage in sexual activity. We should also explain the options available to teenagers: abstaining from sexual activity altogether or using protection while engaging in sexual activity. Protection methods should be explained in full.
> anything. Plus, schools are designed to make students into informed, responsible citizens. This includes educating them about their bodies and how to take care of them.



Yes - and by university or other same stage education, the students may be prepared for the gruesome truth; that some people engage in heterosexual activity!  (Sorry, Blehh, I couldn't resist. But I agree on much of what you say).

Poetic Device - isn't that always a problem? Some kids are not prepared or mature enough for what some other kids are prepared for.


----------



## Mate

Mateamargo said:


> My country is officially Catholic, and even if it was officially Muslim or Jewish the issue of pleasure linked with sexuality would be seen as immoral. So I believe that for now we'll have to put up with the conservative/preventive sexual education that's currently taught.


Por algún motivo -o tal vez por ningún motivo en especial- hasta el momento soy, en este hilo, el único participante proveniente de un país subdesarrollado y cuya Constitución establece una religión oficial (por favor, corríjanme si me equivoco).

En mi país la Iglesia Católica tiene aún una notable influencia en los contenidos de la educación pública y privada. Esto cambiará con el tiempo pero hoy por hoy, es así.

Tal vez debí haber hecho referencia a la *Iglesia* y no a la *Religión Católica* al escribir lo de arriba.




JamesM said:


> I'd just like to say that I don't think any of these religions teach that the pleasure of sex is immoral; rather that seeking sex _merely_ for pleasure is immoral. There is quite a difference.


Estoy de acuerdo (el subrayado es mío).





tvdxer said:


> I do not believe in contraception or pre-marital sex, so I think abstinence-only education is the way to go. Whether it is more or less effective I am not sure; but it is not right to do the immoral in order to get a moral result.


Esto no lo entiendo. La existencia de métodos anticonceptivos y sexo prematrimonial son hechos que no están sujetos a creencias particulares; simplemente están ahí, tienen existencia real.

Uno puede decir que no cree en la gravedad, uno puede no creer que el mundo sea una esfera aplanada o que la segunda Guerra Mundial aún no terminó. Sin embargo se trata de hechos debidamente acreditados, quiera uno creer en ellos o no.

Tal vez mi interpretación o malinterpretación de lo dicho por tvxder se deba a un problema de lenguaje, aunque lo dudo.

Young people can wait until marriage to discover the "personal side" of sex. If they don't, that's their problem.[/quote]
Esto sí que lo entiendo bien. 

Es un excelente ejemplo de cómo se puede pensar dentro de una burbuja de realidad: sólo importa lo que está dentro de la burbuja. 
Lo que está fuera de la burbuja de realidad (en Buenos Aires solemos llamarla “nube de pedo”) no existe porque es molesto y perturbador. 

Como el habitante de la burbuja no quiere que exista esa otra realidad, la de afuera, esta debe ser ignorada y, de ser posible, suprimida.





Poetic Device said:


> Why does a school have to teach children about sexual matters? Shouldn't that be the parents' responsibility? Who decides what the right age to start talking to a child about that is? Doesn't that depend on the individual child? Isn't it taken into consideration that maybe some children are ready for that sort of talk and some are not?





Poetic Device said:


> What happens with that?


Esto refleja otro caso de burbuja de realidad, o de vivir en una “nube de pedo”.

En mi país pobre y subdesarrollado muchos de los chicos que consiguen ir a la escuela no conocen a sus padres. Muchos de esos padres tuvieron que abandonar a sus hijos debido a que no tenían medios para mantenerlos. Muchas madres lo fueron a los doce años y aún menos, por haber sido violadas. En la mayoría de estos casos, los infelices padres de las infelices criaturas no tuvieron acceso a ningún tipo de educación sexual: ni por parte de la escuela, los padres o la Iglesia. 

Mateamargo

Ps: English translations available upon request


----------



## Poetic Device

Blehh. said:


> Maybe we should take the approach that Sweden takes -- start sexual education in Grade 1 and continue it up through the highest grades.
> 
> In the earlier grades, when children are younger, we should avoid explaining opinions about sexual activity; rather, we should explain what basic sexual activity is, sexual anatomy, puberty, menstruation, etc. (i.e., "the birds and the bees")
> 
> In the middle and upper grades, we should explain that there are different types of sexual activity and that there are homosexuals who engage in sexual activity. We should also explain the options available to teenagers: abstaining from sexual activity altogether or using protection while engaging in sexual activity. Protection methods should be explained in full.
> 
> Students shouldn't be swayed one way or the other, and sex education should take an objective stance when it comes to people's sex lives. Students should form their own opinions based on the information they have received from sex education programs. Parents should also play a role in guiding a young person's opinions and values about sex.
> 
> PS: Poetic Device, the sad reality is that many parents often don't talk about sex with their children at all -- a lack of education is more dangerous than anything. Plus, schools are designed to make students into informed, responsible citizens. This includes educating them about their bodies and how to take care of them.


 
What?!  Are you kidding me???  Why would you tell a first grader the birds and the bees???  They would lose their innocence and everything else that makes childhood great.  It would cause them to grow up too fast!  If *ANYONE* told my daughter anything about sex when she's six years old I'll beat them!  You can't do that to a kid, and on top of that it also goes right back to what I said before:  the individual's mentality!!!


----------



## Poetic Device

jonquiliser said:


> Poetic Device - isn't that always a problem? Some kids are not prepared or mature enough for what some other kids are prepared for.


 
That is why I said that the child's *parents* should be responsible for the child.


----------



## jonquiliser

Poetic Device; hmm, if parents are supposed to be responsible for teaching their offspring maths, grammar, history, biology, chemistry, physics and the rest, once their child is mature enough, they'll be rather busy... .

Edit: of course I'm not saying the school shouldn't carry the sole responsibility for the child, and of course the main responsibility will always be with the parents. But tha doesn't lessen the importance of what the school can, and should, contribute with. 

And another note, thanks everyone for contributing! Differing as opinions may be, it is very interesting to read!


----------



## .   1

Mateamargo said:


> Ps: English translations available upon request


If you are interested in my opinion of your opinion I require English.
Request submitted.

.,,


----------



## Poetic Device

jonquiliser said:


> Poetic Device; hmm, if parents are supposed to be responsible for teaching their offspring maths, grammar, history, biology, chemistry, physics and the rest, once their child is mature enough, they'll be rather busy... .
> 
> Edit: of course I'm not saying the school shouldn't carry the sole responsibility for the child, and of course the main responsibility will always be with the parents. But tha doesn't lessen the importance of what the school can, and should, contribute with.
> 
> And another note, thanks everyone for contributing! Differing as opinions may be, it is very interesting to read!


 

Ugh....  I really did not want to go here....  (Why does this always happen???)

Okay, Things like mathematics are not something that is a diehard for parents to be involved with.  Science... it depends.  I would say no.  The reason I think this way is because it all has to do with what sort of religion and moral that you want your children to have.  Sex education shapes a person more than the academic subjects.  It also has to deal with what sort of a relationship the child will have with their parent.  I wasnot able to go to my mother about this sort of thing, but I was able to go to my grandmother (of all people) and I have the greatest relationship with the latter.  Sex education has a lot to do with so many different things, and to have someone other than the parent teach the child is something that does not hit me well.

*LET'S TRY NOT TO HAVE THIS BECOME THE TOPIC.  IF ANYONE WANTS TO CONTINUE THE MORAL AND RELIGION AREA (IF YOU FEEL IT IS OFF TOPIC) PLEASE PM ME.  Thank you.*


----------



## .   1

jonquiliser said:


> Poetic Device; hmm, if parents are supposed to be responsible for teaching their offspring maths, grammar, history, biology, chemistry, physics and the rest, once their child is mature enough, they'll be rather busy... .


And we were. She is now past my ability at University but I still contribute as much of my time to her as I can.
There is nothing that is more important than teaching my daughter anything that I can teach her. It is only once I have exhausted my resources that I farm her out for agistment but she is my responsibility.

.,,


----------



## Blehh.

Poetic Device said:


> What?!  Are you kidding me???  Why would you tell a first grader the birds and the bees???  They would lose their innocence and everything else that makes childhood great.  It would cause them to grow up too fast!  If *ANYONE* told my daughter anything about sex when she's six years old I'll beat them!  You can't do that to a kid, and on top of that it also goes right back to what I said before:  the individual's mentality!!!



What is so wrong with the birds and the bees? 
It's a natural life process and I'd rather that my child learn the truth in an objective manner than having the attitude that sex is "bad" or "dirty" or "inappropriate." Not knowing about sex doesn't necessarily equate to innocence. It's like saying that a child "shouldn't" know how to go to the toilet until they are three years old, or not "know" that the red stuff coming out of their arm when they have a boo-boo is blood. There's nothing wrong with it. Sex is a perfectly natural part of life.


----------



## Mate

As requested by .,, here is the English version of my previous post: 

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Mateamargo* 
My country is officially Catholic, and even if it was officially Muslim or Jewish the issue of pleasure linked with sexuality would be seen as immoral. So I believe that for now we'll have to put up with the conservative/preventive sexual education that's currently taught.

For some reason I’m the only contributor to this thread belonging to an underdeveloped country which happens to have an official religion (Catholic) clearly stated by its Constitution (please correct me if I am wrong). 

The Catholic Church has still a noticeable influence over both public and private education here. It is likely that this situation will change sometime in the future but for the time being, that’s what we have. 

Regarding my post above perhaps I should have make reference to the *Church* rather to the *Catholic Religion*.



Quote:
Originally Posted by *JamesM* 
I'd just like to say that I don't think any of these religions teach that the pleasure of sex is immoral; rather that seeking sex _merely_ for pleasure is immoral. There is quite a difference. 

I agree (the underline in the original is mine).



Quote:
Originally Posted by *tvdxer* 
I do not believe in contraception or pre-marital sex, so I think abstinence-only education is the way to go. Whether it is more or less effective I am not sure; but it is not right to do the immoral in order to get a moral result.

This, I do not understand. Contraceptive methods and pre-marital sex are facts, and facts are not subject to any particular system of beliefs; they simply are there, they actually exist.

One may declare not to believe in gravitational force, one may not believe that the Earth is spherical or that WWII is over. Nonetheless, those facts have been undoubtedly demonstrated, no matter if one wishes to believe in them or not. 

Maybe my interpretation or misinterpretation of what tvxder said is due to a language problem, but I doubt it.

*tvdxer:*_ "__Young people can wait until marriage to discover the "personal side" of sex. If they don't, that's their problem."_

This, I understand quite well.

It makes for an excellent example on how one can think inside a bubble of reality: the only thing that matters is what’s inside the bubble. 
Outside the bubble there is nothing and (because?) the mere act of thinking about what may be out there is annoying and uncomfortable. 

As the inhabitant of the bubble (or fart cloud or cloud made out of fart, as we call it in Buenos Aires) does not want other reality to exist, the “off the bubble” reality must be ignored and even suppressed, whenever possible. 



Quote:
Originally Posted by *Poetic Device* 
Why does a school have to teach children about sexual matters? Shouldn't that be the parents' responsibility? Who decides what the right age to start talking to a child about that is? Doesn't that depend on the individual child? Isn't it taken into consideration that maybe some children are ready for that sort of talk and some are not? What happens with that?

The above shows another good example on how can a person live and think inside a “fart cloud” (nube de pedo).

In my poor and underdeveloped country there are many children that make it to school not even knowing their parents: many of those parents were obliged to abandon them due to lack of material resources such as food, clothing and shelter, many mothers became mothers at twelve or even younger because they were raped. In most cases the unfortunate parents of the unfortunate children had no access to sexual education whatsoever. 

There were no schools nor parents nor Church there to assist them.

Mateamargo


----------



## cuchuflete

Mateamargo said:


> Tip: cut "vivir en una nube de pedo" and paste it in "General Discussion".



That would be Vocabulario general -General vocabulary, the WR English<>Spanish translation forum. 

Just click here:



*General Vocabulary / Vocabulario General*




_Edit:  Asked and answered HERE._


----------



## badgrammar

Mate and Bleh (sorry, haven't read all the posts) I agree with.  The birds and the bees, that's fine.  Who needs to hide that from their children?  Women have ovaries, a utrerus and a vagina.  Her ovaries produce "eggs".  These eggs are fertilized when they come into contact with spermatazoids that are produced in a male's testicles.  Men have penises, when the penis enters the vagina, it is called coitus.  When he ejaculates in the woman, his spermatazoids are released and can fertilize the eggs and make a baby.  Is any of this dirty so far?  Not a bit.  It's reality.  We all go there. 

It may get tricky when we try to color it, and when we must explain unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.  And then we step into which agenda the teacher will push - condoms or abstention?  

I have no problem with my kids hearing about and learning about reproduction.  And I think "Sexual education" is better called "Reproductive education".  It should explain to young people how their bodies function, the effects of hormones, what they can expect from their bodies and those of their peers as they get older, and what "having sex" means and can result in.  That is a far cry from promoting sex. 

It has nothing to do with "teaching" sex.  It is teaching children about how reproduction occurs and how their bodies work.

I'd much rather children learn about their bodies so they can make the right decisions and understand what is happening to them during adolescence.  And not all parents are prepared and able to talk openly about it.

I think some of you really confuse it.  You think "sex education" means teaching children how to have sex.  Please, what they hear in the schoolyard and what they imagine is far scarier than having an adult explain the facts of life.  Birds and bees.  The stork.

Far better to have information and at accordingly than to go on instinct, I say.


----------



## koabr3gn

It's so interesting hearing about other people's experience with sexual education. 
Growing up in the US, we started sex ed. at 11 yrs old and had it at some point in every academic year until 15 or 16 yrs old. 

Although it was very awkward, sex ed. was probably one of the most positive things I can remember about my education. All of my teachers were fairly objective and showed us both the good and the bad of "sexual relations". Yes, we learned about sex in terms of physical pleasure BUT abstinence was always pushed as the most effective method to avoid pregnancy. 
I believe that sex ed teachers must be trained in how to present sensitive material to their students. Mine were and I have never had such a positive experience in terms of learning about sex. 

PS. I don't six is too young to learn about sex. I was that age when I became aware of it and my morality has never suffered from it.


----------



## Musical Chairs

koabr3gn said:


> It's so interesting hearing about other people's experience with sexual education.
> Growing up in the US, we started sex ed. at 11 yrs old and had it at some point in every academic year until 15 or 16 yrs old.
> 
> Although it was very awkward, sex ed. was probably one of the most positive things I can remember about my education. All of my teachers were fairly objective and showed us both the good and the bad of "sexual relations". Yes, we learned about sex in terms of physical pleasure BUT abstinence was always pushed as the most effective method to avoid pregnancy.
> I believe that sex ed teachers must be trained in how to present sensitive material to their students. Mine were and I have never had such a positive experience in terms of learning about sex.
> 
> PS. I don't six is too young to learn about sex. I was that age when I became aware of it and my morality has never suffered from it.



I wouldn't tell my six year old kid everything there is to know about sex, but *if the kid asks,* then I'd tell the truth, not that babies come from the stork or from God. If he asked about sex toys or my own sex life (which probably won't happen), I'd ask where he heard that and what he thinks about it, but I would tell him that I'd be happy to talk to him about it when he's older. My mom used to tell me that she'd only tell me certain things when I got older and when she finally told me, I was like "what's so bad about that??" but I understood at the time. I think it's very important to be honest about sex.

I'm fairly satisfied with my experience with sex ed at school, but it got kind of boring towards the end because they teach you the same thing over and over and over. I learned much more from books and friends. My mom talks about her sex life sometimes, and I don't think it's weird because she's a person too (though this would have been weird if I were only six). Sometimes I don't see what's the big deal with keeping sex a secret because sexuality is a pretty important, obvious part of our lives.

The teachers do have to adhere to strict rules about what they can and can't say so they can't just say whatever they want (if parents worry that they're going to teach their kids something they don't believe in). Also, parents can opt their kids out of certain programs if they'd like (though I don't know of anybody who did).


----------



## Blehh.

Blehh. said:


> What is so wrong with the birds and the bees?
> It's a natural life process and I'd rather that my child learn the truth in an objective manner than having the attitude that sex is "bad" or "dirty" or "inappropriate." Not knowing about sex doesn't necessarily equate to innocence. It's like saying that a child "shouldn't" know how to go to the toilet until they are three years old, or not "know" that the red stuff coming out of their arm when they have a boo-boo is blood. There's nothing wrong with it. Sex is a perfectly natural part of life.



To add additional commentary to this post, sex education would continue from the lowest grades to the highest ones; clearly, it would be cumulative, and more information would be given the older and more mature students are.


----------



## Joca

Mateamargo said:


> As requested by .,, here is the English version of my previous post:
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mateamargo*
> My country is officially Catholic, and even if it was officially Muslim or Jewish the issue of pleasure linked with sexuality would be seen as immoral. So I believe that for now we'll have to put up with the conservative/preventive sexual education that's currently taught.
> 
> For some reason I’m the only contributor to this thread belonging to an underdeveloped country which happens to have an official religion (Catholic) clearly stated by its Constitution (please correct me if I am wrong).
> 
> The Catholic Church has still a noticeable influence over both public and private education here. It is likely that this situation will change sometime in the future but for the time being, that’s what we have.
> 
> Regarding my post above perhaps I should have make reference to the *Church* rather to the *Catholic Religion*.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JamesM*
> I'd just like to say that I don't think any of these religions teach that the pleasure of sex is immoral; rather that seeking sex _merely_ for pleasure is immoral. There is quite a difference.
> 
> I agree (the underline in the original is mine).
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvdxer*
> I do not believe in contraception or pre-marital sex, so I think abstinence-only education is the way to go. Whether it is more or less effective I am not sure; but it is not right to do the immoral in order to get a moral result.
> 
> This, I do not understand. Contraceptive methods and pre-marital sex are facts, and facts are not subject to any particular system of beliefs; they simply are there, they actually exist.
> 
> One may declare not to believe in gravitational force, one may not believe that the Earth is spherical or that WWII is over. Nonetheless, those facts have been undoubtedly demonstrated, no matter if one wishes to believe in them or not.
> 
> Maybe my interpretation or misinterpretation of what tvxder said is due to a language problem, but I doubt it.
> 
> *tvdxer:*_ "__Young people can wait until marriage to discover the "personal side" of sex. If they don't, that's their problem."_
> 
> This, I understand quite well.
> 
> It makes for an excellent example on how one can think inside a bubble of reality: the only thing that matters is what’s inside the bubble.
> Outside the bubble there is nothing and (because?) the mere act of thinking about what may be out there is annoying and uncomfortable.
> 
> As the inhabitant of the bubble (or fart cloud or cloud made out of fart, as we call it in Buenos Aires) does not want other reality to exist, the “off the bubble” reality must be ignored and even suppressed, whenever possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Poetic Device*
> Why does a school have to teach children about sexual matters? Shouldn't that be the parents' responsibility? Who decides what the right age to start talking to a child about that is? Doesn't that depend on the individual child? Isn't it taken into consideration that maybe some children are ready for that sort of talk and some are not? What happens with that?
> 
> The above shows another good example on how can a person live and think inside a “fart cloud” (nube de pedo).
> 
> In my poor and underdeveloped country there are many children that make it to school not even knowing their parents: many of those parents were obliged to abandon them due to lack of material resources such as food, clothing and shelter, many mothers became mothers at twelve or even younger because they were raped. In most cases the unfortunate parents of the unfortunate children had no access to sexual education whatsoever.
> 
> There were no schools nor parents nor Church there to assist them.
> 
> Mateamargo


 
Hello Mateamargo:

1. I made a very small contribution to this thread, and I come from an "underdeveloped" country, as well. So you are not the only one.  

2. Maybe neither Catholicism, nor Islamism nor Judaism, as far as I know, teaches that the pleasure of sex is immoral, but I am afraid they all link sex to procreation. If you are having sex aiming at procreation, then pleasure is ok. If not, I would hesitate to say you are free from sin according to these faiths. Please correct me if I am wrong. However, some Evangelical sects will condemn pleasure even within the scope of procreation. If you had pleasure in procreative sex, then you have to punish yourself. Some go on to suggest self-flogging. Can you believe this?

3. I think tvdxer actually meant that she didn't agree with contraception or pre-marital sex. In this sense, to believe means to agree with or to be in favour of. 

As for tvdxer's opinion itself, if I understand her correctly, I would say it takes to be a very courageous person to hold it in a world where sex is consumed as a commodity or a drug. I look up to that integrity. Even if I myself wouldn't agree to confining sex exclusively to marriage, I do like the idea, however unrealistic or impractical it is, of sex only for the physically and emotionally mature. On the other hand, self-discovery and patience for the young. Part of the energy from sex could be indeed channelled to other activities. We definitively need less TV. 

4. I understand the case of the destitute children. We have much the same situation in this country. However, if these children don't have their biological parents at their side, they often have an equally valid substitute: grandparents, uncles, aunts, foster parents, etc... In most cases, there are always grown-ups living with these children. The worst scenario are the homeless kids, living on the streets and surviving on theft and crime. How can you bring sexual education to these kids if they don't even have the basics?

This said, I don't think that sexual education has an universal formula. The real problem is that sex, like anything else in the world and perhaps more, can't reside in theory alone. However, I think your relation to sex is as it were a side effect of how you were raised in the first years of your life. Some kids are simply luck to have then had loving and understanding parents in those founding years. If something vital was broken in those years, then perhaps it is no longer about sexual education, but about sexual therapy. It is about mending rather than building.  

JC


----------



## Poetic Device

Blehh. said:


> What is so wrong with the birds and the bees?
> It's a natural life process and I'd rather that my child learn the truth in an objective manner than having the attitude that sex is "bad" or "dirty" or "inappropriate." Not knowing about sex doesn't necessarily equate to innocence. It's like saying that a child "shouldn't" know how to go to the toilet until they are three years old, or not "know" that the red stuff coming out of their arm when they have a boo-boo is blood. There's nothing wrong with it. Sex is a perfectly natural part of life.


 

You're doing it again...  Apples and oranges!  Think about it, when a six year old thinks about the opposite sex, what comes to their ind?  Answer:  koodies.  At least all of the kids that I know/knew.  How are you going to have a serious talk with a child about sex (other than the boys have a penis, girls have a vagina thing)?  Seriously, there is no reason whatsoever for a child to need to know that a man's pole goes in a woman's hole.  That is just a _little_ different than going potty...  Am I the only one here that thiks this???


----------



## Mate

Poetic Device said:


> He's saying that my head is filled with a rotten smelling gas.


Not at all. I didn't say anything about a smelly gaseous substance inside your head or anybody's head.

The "vivir en una nube de pedo" (to live inside a fart cloud) concept is similar to the reality tunnel (túnel de realidad) concept. 

_*"Reality tunnel* (...) describes the concept that, with a subconscious set of mental "filters" formed from their __beliefs__ and experiences, everyone interprets this same world differently, hence "__Truth__ is in the eye of the beholder"._
_This is not necessarily meant to imply that there is no __objective truth__; rather that our access to it is mediated through our senses, experience, __conditioning__, prior beliefs, and other non-objective factors. The individual world each person occupies is said to be their reality tunnel..."_

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel

Moderator Edit:  Although this is off topic, I have left it in to avoid further misunderstandings by English speakers.


----------



## badgrammar

Poetic Device said:


> You're doing it again...  Apples and oranges!  Think about it, when a six year old thinks about the opposite sex, what comes to their ind?  Answer:  koodies.  At least all of the kids that I know/knew.  How are you going to have a serious talk with a child about sex (other than the boys have a penis, girls have a vagina thing)?  Seriously, there is no reason whatsoever for a child to need to know that a man's pole goes in a woman's hole.  That is just a _little_ different than going potty...  Am I the only one here that thiks this???



Well, my little 6 year old does want to know a lot of things... I don't tell her everything, obviously, but her questions have elicited an explanation from me about the physical act that produces babies... how penises and vaginas fit together, basically.  Some children want to know.  I guess I just see nothing worng with that.  It's okay to know the facts of life.  That is also how you learn respect for your own body and the wondrous things it can do - things that you can control, that you can make choices about, that no one else can decide for you (and this is where a parent and/or teachers play an important role - in teaching children what their bodies are capable of and how they can choose to control what happens to them).


----------



## Musical Chairs

Poetic Device said:


> You're doing it again...  Apples and oranges!  Think about it, when a six year old thinks about the opposite sex, what comes to their ind?  Answer:  koodies.  At least all of the kids that I know/knew.  How are you going to have a serious talk with a child about sex (other than the boys have a penis, girls have a vagina thing)?  Seriously, there is no reason whatsoever for a child to need to know that a man's pole goes in a woman's hole.  That is just a _little_ different than going potty...  Am I the only one here that thiks this???



I knew about sex about that young, and I don't think I've been ruined; I've never even had sex because I don't want to do it until I'm completely sure I want to and I don't regret any bit of it. Also, since in my culture it isn't as embarassing to be naked as in the US, I knew what older ladies looked like naked with (sometimes sagging) breasts, pubic hair, and big hips, and what guys looked like with penises. I think this is another thing --- when kids see people besides themselves naked, they are more comfortable with their own bodies and it's not as shocking when they start to develop. I don't think that as a little kid going to public baths (they do this in Japan), I even REALIZED that grownup women had breasts/pubic hair and I didn't. It was just so normal. I saw it a lot, but the differences didn't register consciously in my mind.

And I never believed in cooties (I think that's an American thing, unless they have similar myths elsewhere in the world).

Also, you don't have to have a SERIOUS talk. You can just say, "well, a baby is made when a man puts his penis inside a woman's vagina and puts sperm inside her. The sperm reaches an egg, and the baby grows in the uterus until it is ready to be born. Do you get it?" And maybe you'd explain that many animals also reproduce in the same way, including dogs, cats, snakes, etc. And this is if they ask, you don't have to be like "come here, we're going to have a two hour discussion on sex."


----------



## Poetic Device

badgrammar said:


> Well, my little 6 year old does want to know a lot of things... I don't tell her everything, obviously, but her questions have elicited an explanation from me about the physical act that produces babies... how penises and vaginas fit together, basically. Some children want to know. I guess I just see nothing worng with that. It's okay to know the facts of life. That is also how you learn respect for your own body and the wondrous things it can do - things that you can control, that you can make choices about, that no one else can decide for you (and this is where a parent and/or teachers play an important role - in teaching children what their bodies are capable of and how they can choose to control what happens to them).


 
(Oh, look everyone! A language that I understand! :: pissy smile:: )

In one of my replies (I think that it was actually deleted) I said that I agreed with explaining things to children that young if they asked. If it is something that isn't too apropriate for them, a quick "I'll explain that when you are a little older" will suffice. However, to have them in a classroom and taught that when they are about six years old... That's not necessary in my opinion.


----------



## Blehh.

Poetic Device said:


> You're doing it again...  Apples and oranges!  Think about it, when a six year old thinks about the opposite sex, what comes to their ind?  Answer:  koodies.  At least all of the kids that I know/knew.  How are you going to have a serious talk with a child about sex (other than the boys have a penis, girls have a vagina thing)?  Seriously, there is no reason whatsoever for a child to need to know that a man's pole goes in a woman's hole.  That is just a _little_ different than going potty...  Am I the only one here that thiks this???



Well. You say tomato, yo digo tomate. 

Maybe general health education throughout the grades would be better. Sex should be introduced in increments, and maybe not until right before children hit puberty. (Nine or ten would be a better age.) Six year olds don't need to know what penetration is, per se, but sex could be merely _acknowledged _in the earlier grades.


----------



## winklepicker

. said:


> I am horrified at the concept of a teacher being involved in the sex or sexual education of children. This is firmly and totally the responsibility and right of the parents of the children concerned.


Yes, I agree. But what if they don't? 

In the UK we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. And it passes down the generations. It is not uncommon for a girl who becomes a mother at 16 to be a grandmother at 32. I would suggest that this is linked to a failure of sex education both at home and in school. UNICEF agree.

As a society we have a right and a duty to give children the knowledge that their parents have failed to supply. As they do in Holland - where teenagers are five times less likely to become parents than in the UK.


----------



## Mate

winklepicker said:


> Yes, I agree. But what if they don't?
> 
> In the UK we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. And it passes down the generations. It is not uncommon for a girl who becomes a mother at 16 to be a grandmother at 32. I would suggest that this is linked to a failure of sex education both at home and in school. UNICEF agree.
> 
> As a society we have a right and a duty to give children the knowledge that their parents have failed to supply. As they do in Holland - where teenagers are five times less likely to become parents than in the UK.


I agree, especially with the underlined.


----------



## Fernando

So, do you mean teenager parents in UK did not know that if a man ejaculate inside a woman's vagina, there is some probability that a child goes out nine months later?


----------



## Musical Chairs

Fernando said:


> So, do you mean teenager parents in UK did not know that if a man ejaculate inside a woman's vagina, there is some probability that a child goes out nine months later?



I think they probably knew that they COULD get pregnant if thed had unprotected sex, but like here, I think they underestimate the significance of this outcome. People think they will just get lucky and nothing will happen, but when it does, it's a bigger problem than they'd thought.

I think people are scared of sex education because they think it will encourage people to have sex earlier. While this _could_ be true (not true in my case), it's much better than people having sex later and getting accidentally pregnant / STDs. What's most important is that young people understand the importance of using protection properly if they do decide to have sex, AND the emotional/spiritual and physical consequences that result. The emotional/spiritual parts are largely neglected in sex ed (both at home and at school in most cases), and I think this is just as important as learning the mechanics. I know so many people who hook up, and it's not even something that makes them happy. So many people regret losing their virginity when they did, to the person they lost it to. I think ultimately, sex and your sexuality should make you feel *truly* good about about yourself, and it's not happening to many people I know. Most of the time, this is related to general insecurites they have in the first place.

I think Japan's (and maybe Korea's too, but I'm not entirely sure) low teen pregnancy rate can be explained at least partly by its culture, for reasons I've already mentioned in this thread. Their approach to sex is different from the way western countries do.


----------



## .   1

winklepicker said:


> Yes, I agree. But what if they don't?


Then identify the children at risk and deal with them in an appropriate manner.
The kids to which you refer will be already emotionally damaged by poor attempts at parenting.  Many will have been sexually abused themselves or come from broken homes with no nuclear family.  The children of single parent drug addicts with prison records and a very slanted view of society need to be dealt with in a far more circumspect manner than my daughter who is happy for a spade to be called a bloody shovel in that area.

Kids are already separated and treated differently on so many other matters.
Public Sexual Education should follow the same pattern.



winklepicker said:


> In the UK we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. And it passes down the generations. It is not uncommon for a girl who becomes a mother at 16 to be a grandmother at 32. I would suggest that this is linked to a failure of sex education both at home and in school. UNICEF agree.


I that because the UK has the worst record of home sexual education?
That seems very simplistic.
I am aware of some very puritanical societies where I doubt that there is much more than a bees do this to birds talk but the UK is worse than these places.  My mind boggles.  What are UK parents doing to their kids?



winklepicker said:


> As a society we have a right and a duty to give children the knowledge that their parents have failed to supply. As they do in Holland - where teenagers are five times less likely to become parents than in the UK.


That their parents have failed to supply.
Why does my precious little bundle of protoplasm have to get told stuff by some governmental employee reading from a book written by committee and then censored by every crackpot religious organisation in the country because Cletus and his cousin/wife Maybel can't get their acts together?

.,,


----------



## CrazyArcher

I see tha winklepicker pointed at a significant problem. It looks like some kind of catch-22... Teachers shouldn't be involved, parents should be instead of them, but in the case parents are not, then the ball bounces back to governmental organizations...

I agree with .,, that it's possible to identify "children at risk", as he referred to them, but I don't think it always comes from lower-class families of drug addicts with prison records... What if the parents just don't choose to talk to their kids about that, for whatever reason? I don't think that any reason can justify possible unplanned (let alone teenage) pregnancy, but still...


----------



## badgrammar

And I just keep thinking, what a misnomer!  Sexual education, sex ed...  It is part of a science curriculum, in my mind, basic biology 101, and "reproductive education" is certainly a better way to think of it.  No teacher is there to educate your children sexually, the idea is that a teacher teaches children about the biological process of reproduction, and about the way that the human animal grows into a reproductive adult of the species.

It's just biology, nothing a school teaches my kid about it is going to drive them to ruin.  I feel people putting a lot more weight into than I do, I just consider it a normal thing that children should learn about it, both at home and at school. 

Surely no one thinks that the whole biological question of reproduction should be avoided in school?


----------



## .   1

badgrammar said:


> Surely no one thinks that the whole biological question of reproduction should be avoided in school?


My understanding of the terms are that Sex Education is biological and physical while Sexual Education is morals and emotions.

.,,


----------



## badgrammar

Well then, perhaps we should stir up some definitions here?  And I imagine that US vs UK vs Aussi vs New Zealand etc. would not have a uniform understanding of what those terms mean or how they are employed.  I have never heard the term "sexual education" applied to what youngsters learn at school.  It is far too intimate a term and smacks of being taught how to f@ck.  I'd be surprised if there are any courses given in the US to children younger thatn 16/18 that are labeled "sexual education", and even then...  At University level, surely.  But i think the terms need to be a lot clearer, because obviously the two are NOT interchangeable, in any English language.   

You get sexual education from your partners.  If you're getting it from your teachers, it is probably illegal...


----------



## winklepicker

. said:


> Why does my precious little bundle of protoplasm have to get told stuff by some governmental employee reading from a book written by committee and then censored by every crackpot religious organisation in the country because Cletus and his cousin/wife Maybel can't get their acts together?


Well, I think if you have done your job properly then probably it doesn't matter much what happens to your children in school. Your bundle of protoplasm can have the pleasure of saying at break time 'Oh, _fellatio_! That old thing? My parents told me all about that when I was five..." and gaining extra street cred in the playground.  

Seriously, though, it's a safety net. It's not aimed at kids like yours. It's aimed at the parents who can't or won't do the job. In Holland, they teach children how to put on a condom (no, since you ask, _not_ on a live subject: on a dildo). How many parents are going to do that - realistically? And yet, without familiarity with barrier contraceptives, how are teenagers to stay out of trouble?

Maybe you don't need it in Neighbours-land. But we sure do here.


----------



## Joca

I don’t have any experience with sex(ual) education as it is given currently in schools, but I have a few questions and ideas. Some of them will raise further problems, I am afraid. How is sex(ual) education given to the class? Do they use a national book? Or does each school have its own manual? I think that if sex(ual) education is needed at all, and from the various readings I have made here, it seems it is indeed needed in most cases, since parents are already overburdened with survival areas, then there should be a bibliography for educators to choose from. These objective books should be exempt from any religious sense whatever, not mention the words “right” and “wrong”, but rather “safe” and “risky”, and employ a language and a style as neutral as possible. This applies to all sorts of schools, including religion-oriented schools. Parents, step-parents and anyone else who is responsible for the child should be invited to talk with the teachers and discuss the contents of the “course” before it starts and then regularly come for revision, and if sexual education is optional, they should have the right to remove their child from the class if they don’t agree with it or if they can assure the child is already given the adequate education at home. How about the evaluation of the course? Rather than tests and examinations, why not round tables and presentations? I think there should be a male teacher for the boys and a female teacher for the girls, and in many occasions both groups would work together. Both teachers should desirably have a degree in psychology. As for the possible “deviations”, if detected in a class, they should be respected and never highlighted. In fact, never should a pupil or student be mentioned as a case study. The course should be totally impersonal. I know it is very difficult to have all these criteria met satisfactorily, but I see it’s better to have this education than no education at all. What great evil can a sex educator represent at all? Aren't some people looking at them through a magnifying glass? I may be wrong, but many children at a certain age are already good enough at seeing how good or bad a teacher is. If they find that they have a biased or bigoted educator, they will speak up against him or her, won’t they?
 
JC


----------



## .   1

It's lovely that we are all now on the same page about sexual -v- sex education.

.,,


----------



## jonquiliser

Oh - I realise now that the very thread name became part of the controversy. Entirely unintended, on my part, as I just took a Swedish term (sexualundervisning) and had something that to me looked pretty ok in English. I actually thought "sex education" would have sounded more like "learning to have sex". 

As for the tests, I don't see why there should have to be any. I see the subject as among those things you discuss and are told about in school, but that aren't "tested". Sports was another, it's a way to get kids to move around a little, do different sports, but that isn't tested. And why should it be? Things shouldn't just be about achievement (and this is especially true for certain things ). 

The reason for me to post the thread in the first place, was mainly my disagreement with equating sex (in general) with "reproduction". I find this to be skewed, and a skewed picture that is pumped into the minds of kids throughout school. Precisely because (in my case, and in that of many others) the only time sex is talked about, is in relation to "human biology" (it was actually in biology class, and nowhere else, my school had this in the curriculum). There is believed to be such a thing as "human sexual anatomy", which comprises "female and male genitalia", and has the clear finality of "penis entering vagina". And this is simply false, and _is not_ an equivalent to "sexuality", "only more impersonal" so that no one's offended and no one's morals questioned. It is in fact a very ideological picture of sexuality that emerges, and calling it impersonal or the "neutral explanation" rather cheeky, imho. 

I actually think the most important thing is to pick up on the doubts, questions and curiosities of the youngsters themselves. Not spitting out a ready-made picture, "this is what you should learn" (with an emphasis on "learn"), but TALKING with the kids. There is too little dialogue with the kids, in school in general. I think now [sex-ed] in Finland is back on the curriculum, and I know that at least for many schools what they do is bring a person from outside the school, who's specialised in dealing with "sex(uality)" and youngsters. So anyway, in this case it's not a question of a subject that you "study" among the rest of them, it's something that is dealt with at certain times. 

And anyway, of course (does it really need to be said??)!!! parents should be present for their kids, with the kids, talking to them and with them. Teachers can never give the kind of advice that parents can (and shouldn't). But this does not exclude the importance of other sources for info and discussion for children. Parents aren't, and shouldn't be, omnipotent. They should be parents. And for the cases when they are not, it's good that kids get at least the other bit, the one that corresponds to teachers ...


----------



## cuchuflete

Some people have talked about measuring teacher performance, and the difficulties this might present.

How about abstinence classes?  It would seem that the measurement would be very easy. Do they or don't they have sex after taking the class?

From the Associated Press today-



> WASHINGTON - Students who took part in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress.
> 
> Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes that were reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes. And they first had sex at about the same age as other students


----------



## Joca

jonquiliser said:


> Oh - I realise now that the very thread name became part of the controversy. Entirely unintended, on my part, as I just took a Swedish term (sexualundervisning) and had something that to me looked pretty ok in English. I actually thought "sex education" would have sounded more like "learning to have sex".
> 
> As for the tests, I don't see why there should have to be any. I see the subject as among those things you discuss and are told about in school, but that aren't "tested". Sports was another, it's a way to get kids to move around a little, do different sports, but that isn't tested. And why should it be? Things shouldn't just be about achievement (and this is especially true for certain things ).
> 
> The reason for me to post the thread in the first place, was mainly my disagreement with equating sex (in general) with "reproduction". I find this to be skewed, and a skewed picture that is pumped into the minds of kids throughout school. Precisely because (in my case, and in that of many others) the only time sex is talked about, is in relation to "human biology" (it was actually in biology class, and nowhere else, my school had this in the curriculum). There is believed to be such a thing as "human sexual anatomy", which comprises "female and male genitalia", and has the clear finality of "penis entering vagina". And this is simply false, and _is not_ an equivalent to "sexuality", "only more impersonal" so that no one's offended and no one's morals questioned. It is in fact a very ideological picture of sexuality that emerges, and calling it impersonal or the "neutral explanation" rather cheeky, imho.
> 
> I actually think the most important thing is to pick up on the doubts, questions and curiosities of the youngsters themselves. Not spitting out a ready-made picture, "this is what you should learn" (with an emphasis on "learn"), but TALKING with the kids. There is too little dialogue with the kids, in school in general. I think now [sex-ed] in Finland is back on the curriculum, and I know that at least for many schools what they do is bring a person from outside the school, who's specialised in dealing with "sex(uality)" and youngsters. So anyway, in this case it's not a question of a subject that you "study" among the rest of them, it's something that is dealt with at certain times.
> 
> And anyway, of course (does it really need to be said??)!!! parents should be present for their kids, with the kids, talking to them and with them. Teachers can never give the kind of advice that parents can (and shouldn't). But this does not exclude the importance of other sources for info and discussion for children. Parents aren't, and shouldn't be, omnipotent. They should be parents. And for the cases when they are not, it's good that kids get at least the other bit, the one that corresponds to teachers ...


 
As far as I am concerned, I want to say "thank you" to Jonquiliser for this timely thread. Maybe we won't be able to reach a consensus this time yet, but I think it is well worth one's while to hear different perspectives. For me, this was also an instructive thread. 

As a final note, I want to mention clothes. I don't think sexual or sex education (whatever the right name is) is the venue for telling young people what clothes to wear, how and when, but aren't clothes a very important topic in relation to sex(ual) behaviour? Especially in a warm country like this one, where people tend to wear as little clothes as possible, whenever it is possible, clothes as a sexual subject can't go unnoticed. I don't know how the educators should approach this in the classroom, if ever they should, but maybe this is the right stuff for another thread.

Tack sa mycket, Jonquiliser. Obrigado.

Joca/JC


----------



## jonquiliser

Joca, thank you for your kind words . Aprecio também as tuas contribuções!


----------



## .   1

jonquiliser said:


> The reason for me to post the thread in the first place, was mainly my disagreement with equating sex (in general) with "reproduction". I find this to be skewed, and a skewed picture that is pumped into the minds of kids throughout school.


I agree that this is the Fundamental problem.

.,,


----------



## JamesM

. said:


> It's lovely that we are all now on the same page about sexual -v- sex education.
> 
> .,,


 
In the U.S., I have heard "sex education" for the classes in a school. "He received a sexual education at the hands of a prostitute" is a way to use "sexual education", but it does not mean sitting in a class in the traditional sense. 

I've also seen them used interchangeably, such as in this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education

I'm afraid I'm not on the same page. Can you provide any source that defines "sexual education" and "sex education" differently?


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> I'm afraid I'm not on the same page. Can you provide any source that defines "sexual education" and "sex education" differently?


My daughter's High School curriculum.
Sex education is biological.
Sexual education is attitudinal.

You seem to grasp the difference.
A school teacher can be a sex educator.
A prostitute can be a sexual educator.
We should keep these tasks strictly seperated.

.,,


----------



## Joca

. said:


> My daughter's High School curriculum.
> Sex education is biological.
> Sexual education is attitudinal.
> 
> You seem to grasp the difference.
> A school teacher can be a sex educator.
> A prostitute can be a sexual educator.
> We should keep these tasks strictly seperated.
> 
> .,,


 
Good explanation, but I am wondering about the examples you are giving. In my (your?) time, more than 30 years ago, it was still usual for a prostitute to initiate a young man into sex, but I don't think this happens so frequently now. Boys and girls usually have their first sex with each other. Prostitutes are no longer initiators, but they can often act as therapists by default.

JC


----------



## winklepicker

. said:


> A school teacher can be a sex educator. A prostitute can be a sexual educator. We should keep these tasks strictly separated..,,


Spoilsport.


----------

