"Has US abstinence policy failed?"

[Gorgon]

d.ildo

[Krookie]

I don't understand what that has to do with anything

[Gorgon]

It has to do with the filter and there being no delete button.

[Krookie]

right.

[astr0creep]

Parents should educate their children (and I'm sure MOST do a pretty good job) and schools are there to provide extra answers to the kids' questions, in the form of books or counselors and whatnot.

 

Sex ed is not academics and school should only be for academics(math, history, language, geography, etc). But in the world we live in, schools have become daycares and babysitters while a lot of parents(not all of them thank God) just don't take the time to educate their kids properly, instead answering with a "don't they teach you that in school?" type of answer to their children's interrogations.

 

As with religion, sex is a personal thing and it should only be tought mainly in the family. But schools need to be there as support.

 

IMO

[Tigranes]

Sex ed is not academics and school should only be for academics(math, history, language, geography, etc)

 

So, uh, schools shouldn't offer discipline, sports, debating, social activity, music, etc?

 

Schools are an institution who have always been designed to prepare a child to be a good social subject in later life - read any educational documents in 18th/19th century England/Europe and you can see them going on and on about this.

 

If influencing a child was entirely a parent's job then parents shouldn't be working, they should be taking care of children 24/7, and children shouldn't need to go to school. The fact is children, now more than ever, spend more time and pay more attention to external things like school, media and their friends more than their parents, and as the child is mainly operating outside their spheres of influence, the parent cannot be expected to do it all alone.

 

edit: more generally directed than just at astrocreep.

[Krookie]

Sex ed is not academics and school should only be for academics(math, history, language, geography, etc)

 

So, uh, schools shouldn't offer discipline, sports, debating, social activity, music, etc?

 

Everything you listed is (relatively speaking) optional.

[Pidesco]

Sports is not optional.

[Tigranes]

By 'optional', of course, meaning that there is often a big social pressure to get involved in at least some of those 'extra-curricular' activities, and some schools even focus more or as much on them as academics - certainly, this was the case with, say, Eton in the early 20th century, when you were in for a whole world of trouble, from teachers as much as other students, if you didn't play sports.

 

The point stands that arguing schools are only for the 'accumulation of academic knowledge' is really not seeing the bigger picture. Even if schools were just for 'academics', the practice always involves bodily training of morality, and the institution as a whole has always been focused on teaching morality, social proficiency and such. Religion would still have its place if it didn't have such opposition.

 

Anyway, limited to just sex ed - I'm sure it could be done by parents, but I wager many parents are quite glad the schools do it for them. Heh.

[Krookie]

Sports is not optional.

 

I mean outside of physical education.

[Guard Dog]

What about letting parents do their job?

 

Because some will take the opportunity to spread harmful misinformation and dogma.

The arrogance of that statement is nothing short of astounding. And more than a little scary. Its one thing to discuss what is taught in a public school. It is another all together to bring that into the privacy of the home. It is a parents right and duty to teach their children, no one has the right to tell them how to do it. The funny thing about freedom is everyone must have it or no one does.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Gorgon]

Hey, teacher, leave them kids alone.

[Gorth]

As with religion, sex is a personal thing and it should only be tought mainly in the family. But schools need to be there as support.

I am curious... why is sex a "personal" thing? I would have thought it a natural thing, to be tought together with biology, anatomy, genealogy etc. in biology class.

[samm]

True, as this contains topics like diseases, anatomy, female period and all things related to contraception. A biology teacher should be a better informer with more thorough knowledge on such things than most parents.

Edited May 2, 2008 by samm

[Krookie]

That doesn't mean they should teach it though. Who's to say when someone's kid is ready to learn about sex anyway?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

What about letting parents do their job?

 

Because some will take the opportunity to spread harmful misinformation and dogma.

The arrogance of that statement is nothing short of astounding. And more than a little scary. Its one thing to discuss what is taught in a public school. It is another all together to bring that into the privacy of the home. It is a parents right and duty to teach their children, no one has the right to tell them how to do it. The funny thing about freedom is everyone must have it or no one does.

 

Your idiocy is astonishing - where did I ever say that parents should not be able to teach their children? What I did say, however, is that schools need to make sure that they, the children, know certain things that might, or might not, have been taught at home. Stop putting words in my mouth to further your views.

 

 

The parents can educate the children as well, but the schools should provide a back-up just in case the mothers and fathers of America **** things up.

[Tigranes]

That doesn't mean they should teach it though. Who's to say when someone's kid is ready to learn about sex anyway?

 

*shrug* who's to say when someone's ready to learn about anything? The real point at issue here is how to categorise sex - is it a type of social knowledge, like etiquette, that we all need a certain degree of knowledge about? Is it something like how we treat religion nowadays, a very private choice and something that one may not need to know? Is it something like maths, which is considered crucial in all social life?

[Krookie]

That doesn't mean they should teach it though. Who's to say when someone's kid is ready to learn about sex anyway?

 

*shrug* who's to say when someone's ready to learn about anything?

 

What you just said there was absolutely retarded, if you aren't smart enough to realize the difference between learning addition and learning about vaginal intercourse, I'm worried.

[Nick_i_am]

Yeah, multiplication is a whole different kettle of fish.

[Tigranes]

The real point at issue here is how to categorise sex - is it a type of social knowledge, like etiquette, that we all need a certain degree of knowledge about? Is it something like how we treat religion nowadays, a very private choice and something that one may not need to know? Is it something like maths, which is considered crucial in all social life?

 

Wonderful thing, context. You know, Krookie, that I'm not arguing they're all the same. That would be very postmodernist of me. By which I mean, pointless.

[astr0creep]

As with religion, sex is a personal thing and it should only be tought mainly in the family. But schools need to be there as support.

I am curious... why is sex a "personal" thing? I would have thought it a natural thing, to be tought together with biology, anatomy, genealogy etc. in biology class.

 

 

Isn't there a big difference between biology, anatomy and sex ed?

 

 

Sex ed is more about the emotional part of a physical relationship, about how one can react when the body is invaded by endorphines and/or a partners "liquids" no?

 

It's like... I can know a lot about car mechanics without knowing how to drive, where mechanics is to biology what driving is to making love/having sex.

 

I suppose it is logical to have both in the same class but should we have sex ed in bio or bio in sex ed?

 

 

Anyway my point was that parents don't do enough and rely on schools too much. Some things, like religion and sex/love should be tought within the family first, with school as support.

Edited May 2, 2008 by astr0creep

[Pidesco]

Actually, I don't think the difference between sex ed, and biology is the emotional side of sex, but that it's rather that it's just a question of mores. Everyone knows about sex, but almost no one talks about it in a meaningful way, mostly from shame. It's like everyone knows their parents have sex, but no one really wants to think about it.

[astr0creep]

Actually, I don't think the difference between sex ed, and biology is the emotional side of sex, but that it's rather that it's just a question of mores. Everyone knows about sex, but almost no one talks about it in a meaningful way, mostly from shame. It's like everyone knows their parents have sex, but no one really wants to think about it.

 

Or grand parents...

 

[Guard Dog]

My apologies DN. I took:

 

Because some will take the opportunity to spread harmful misinformation and dogma.

 

out of context because I did not see:

 

The parents can educate the children as well, but the schools should provide a back-up just in case the mothers and fathers of America **** things up

.

 

Mea Culpa. It was not intentional.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Guard Dog

[samm]

Sex ed is more about the emotional part of a physical relationship, about how one can react when the body is invaded by endorphines and/or a partners "liquids" no?

Actually, no You and Krookie got it wrong. If you think that, it's obvious why you consider it private, or be "taught" by family rather than at school.

 

Anyway my point was that parents don't do enough and rely on schools too much. Some things, like religion and sex/love should be tought within the family first, with school as support.

Just a shift of perspective to my own (support role is interchanged), but from the statement above, this difference is easily explained

 

Also:

Or grand parents...