What would happen if sex ed was banned from K-12?

[grip]

Recalibrate your sarcasm meter.

Was that your piss poor attempt at sarcasm?

 

[jamesrage]

I'm not asking really about the practicality of it, about how it would be effectively banned. I'm more asking what you think the general outcome would be.

What was society like before sex ed was banned? Were we more or less sexually promiscuous?

 

[OrphanSlug]

I'm not asking really about the practicality of it, about how it would be effectively banned. I'm more asking what you think the general outcome would be.

The poll is a bit invalid, the level of promiscuity is an issue but not the only issue.

If we do not empower our kids with information and education then whatever level of promiscuity we see still becomes a catalyst to teen pregnancy, STDs, and a dozen or more other problems that are an issue simply because of far right suggests their path leads to good things.

We have too much evidence taking education away from our kids results in terrible things.

 

[IQ57]

Yeah, when did that happen? Point to a specific example. If you can't, then all you are doing is trolling and you will be treated accordingly.

Was it the same time that the FBI helped Trump win the 2016 election, when Comey blindsided Clinton a week before the election?

This is such stupid, childish bullshit.

What was society like before sex ed was banned? Were we more or less sexually promiscuous?

Less.

 

[Atreus21]

If you're not concerned about this as a moral issue, why does it matter?

If it's not about morality, then there's no way anyone can object to kids understanding health-related things like periods, sexual function, stds, and pregnancy, is there?

Promiscuity is nothing more than people choosing to have sex with a variety of people...if it's not about morality...what's the issue? Again, understanding the health aspects are only positives, arent they?

I think most people could agree that kids engaging in it is dangerous, especially girls. Do you disagree?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Any response here? I was looking for clarification.



If you're not concerned about this as a moral issue, why does it matter?

If it's not about morality, then there's no way anyone can object to kids understanding health-related things like periods, sexual function, stds, and pregnancy, is there?

Promiscuity is nothing more than people choosing to have sex with a variety of people...if it's not about morality...what's the issue? Again, understanding the health aspects are only positives, arent they?

I agree with you, and there is no issue from me for kids from say, 7th grade and up, learning about periods, sexual function, std's and pregnancy, etc.

That said, the concern for most people about what gets taught is not about the scientific material, the human anatomy and physiology and the reality of how homo sapiens interact and procreate. What people are concerned about is the morality that is taught in schools, because people tend to have differing moralities when it comes to sex. So, the Leftist Progressives tend to want one kind morality taught, and the right wing religious fundamentalists want another. If one is going to allow Mx. Bluehair Nosering teach her idea of what is a moral way to look at and approach sex and sexuality, then one must allow for the fact that some teachers will be Mrs. Church Lady who also has her own idea of what is a moral way to look at and approach sex and sexuality.

The answer to this issue is to ensure that the science taught is science, and not morality, and that includes what Leftist Progressives want, such as the morality of gender inclusion, the view that sexual conduct among teenagers is a positive, and that kids should be taught to engage in oral and anal sex, and whatnot, as is often shown in more Leftist recitations of this issue.

I dont' think it should be the job of the schools to try to reduce teenage promiscuity, nor do I think it is their job to increase it or to "teach" that sex is just fine to engage in. It's really not the school's business to be telling our kids what is "right and wrong" morally. They should maintain a good learning environment and teach the kids reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, geography, literature, art, music, phys ed, and the like. They have a hard enough time doing a good job at that. They ought not be saddled with telling kids how to think about gender or sex.

 

[Lursa]

The answer to this issue is to ensure that the science taught is science, and not morality, and that includes what Leftist Progressives want, such as the morality of gender inclusion, the view that sexual conduct among teenagers is a positive, and that kids should be taught to engage in oral and anal sex, and whatnot, as is often shown in more Leftist recitations of this issue.

Those things exist and kids know about them. Should they be aware of the health aspects of them or not?

They are teaching 'how-tos' or that those things are 'good' or 'bad'. It seems that many repressed people get freaked out if they're even acknowledged. Hiding them doesnt stop the kids from knowing about them...so the messaging about health and safety remains important IMO.

I dont' think it should be the job of the schools to try to reduce teenage promiscuity, nor do I think it is their job to increase it or to "teach" that sex is just fine to engage in. It's really not the school's business to be telling our kids what is "right and wrong" morally.

It's not their job but it's strongly incidental to teen's health that they dont be promiscuous and if they are, to do so safely. And we know many are going to have sex. Nobody say's it's 'just fine' to my knowledge. It's not bad either...that kind of repression is unhealthy and backfires.

They should maintain a good learning environment and teach the kids reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, geography, literature, art, music, phys ed, and the like. They have a hard enough time doing a good job at that. They ought not be saddled with telling kids how to think about gender or sex.

Agreed.

 

[Lursa]

I think most people could agree that kids engaging in it is dangerous, especially girls. Do you disagree?

Not necessarily...why? And please answer my questions before asking more of your own.

 

[Lursa]

Any response here? I was looking for clarification.

If you're not concerned about this as a moral issue, why does it matter?

If it's not about morality, then there's no way anyone can object to kids understanding health-related things like periods, sexual function, stds, and pregnancy, is there?

Promiscuity is nothing more than people choosing to have sex with a variety of people...if it's not about morality...what's the issue? Again, understanding the health aspects are only positives, arent they?

I think most people could agree that kids engaging in it is dangerous, especially girls. Do you disagree?

Not necessarily, why do say that? And please answer my questions before asking your own.

 

[Atreus21]

Not necessarily...why? And please answer my questions before asking more of your own.

Presumably because we want fewer unplanned pregnancies and std's, I thought.

 

[Lursa]

If you're not concerned about this as a moral issue, why does it matter?

If it's not about morality, then there's no way anyone can object to kids understanding health-related things like periods, sexual function, stds, and pregnancy, is there?

Promiscuity is nothing more than people choosing to have sex with a variety of people...if it's not about morality...what's the issue? Again, understanding the health aspects are only positives, arent they?

Presumably because we want fewer unplanned pregnancies and std's, I thought.

Exactly. And that's what sex ed teaches, it's the basics of what that class is. So why ask if it's not about the moral aspects of it?

Do you really think that anyone objects to what I posted earlier? (see red text)

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Those things exist and kids know about them. Should they be aware of the health aspects of them or not?

Do I think kindergartners through 6th graders should be taught about the health aspects of sucking cocks and taking it up the ass? Not really, no. You?

They are teaching 'how-tos' or that those things are 'good' or 'bad'. It seems that many repressed people get freaked out if they're even acknowledged. Hiding them doesnt stop the kids from knowing about them...so the messaging about health and safety remains important IMO.

There is such a thing as age-appropriate. If you have kids, you'd know. My 6 year old doesn't really need to know about how to please the glans of a man's penis or to remember to pay attention to the balls, IMO. What do you think?

It's not their job but it's strongly incidental to teen's health that they dont be promiscuous and if they are,

It's not the school's business to instill sexual mores. They are empowered to control behavior on school grounds, prevent misbehavior, and the like, but they aren't the religious or moral instructors of my kids or yours. I raise my kids with a healthy understanding of human physiology, and without hang ups about their bodies and funcitons. However, my six year old hasn't had instruction yet about dating, sex, sex acts and gender, because I don't believe she needs that right now, and she can have a more innocent childhood not involving those things. It is not, in my view, the school's job to teach about the merits or demerits of promiscuity, just as I do not want a religious teacher telling my kids that sex is bad except in the marriage bed and except in missionary position, I don't want blue-haired nose ring girl telling my grammar school kid that taking it in the ass is a good sexual alternative that eliminates the risk of pregnancy.

to do so safely. And we know many are going to have sex.

Sure, and it's not the school's business to address that. It's my business as my children's parent.

Nobody say's it's 'just fine' to my knowledge.

What's just fine? Some people say promiscuity is fine. Some people say sex early and often is a good, healthy way to be. Some people encourage girls to have sex so that they will defy the stigma of girls being sluts and boys being heroes by having sex. Others think you have to do the "Christian side hug" until you're married, or it's evil. Which is correct is not the school's business. IMO.

I do not like the idea of schools being in loco parentis. The are there to a job - educate the kids on academic subjects, not moralize to them.

 

[Atreus21]

Exactly. And that's what sex ed teaches, it's the basics of what that class is. So why ask if it's not about the moral aspects of it?

Do you really think that anyone objects to what I posted earlier? (see red text)

I'm not sure there is a significant moral aspect to it, or if there is, it's secondary. I'm more interested in the practicalities: If we want fewer STDs and teen pregnancies, are we better off with school-taught sex ed, or without it?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I'm not sure there is a significant moral aspect to it, or if there is, it's secondary. I'm more interested in the practicalities: If we want fewer STDs and teen pregnancies, are we better off with school-taught sex ed, or without it?

That depends what is taught, and in this day and age, there is a significant disparity in opinion among the populace as to what should be taught to children. It's not the same as the anatomy of a frog in middle school biology. If part of sex ed is going to be teaching kids how to have oral sex at age 10, then I would respectfully disagree with that being the role of a school. Similarly, if it is going to focus on gender issues, where teachers are engaged in pop psychology with the students, I would also respectfully disagree. If the class is limited to age-appropriate science concerning human biology, anatomy, and reproduction, then that's fine.

 

[Atreus21]

That depends what is taught, and in this day and age, there is a significant disparity in opinion among the populace as to what should be taught to children. It's not the same as the anatomy of a frog in middle school biology. If part of sex ed is going to be teaching kids how to have oral sex at age 10, then I would respectfully disagree with that being the role of a school. Similarly, if it is going to focus on gender issues, where teachers are engaged in pop psychology with the students, I would also respectfully disagree. If the class is limited to age-appropriate science concerning human biology, anatomy, and reproduction, then that's fine.

Completely agree. My own suspicion is that depravity is being smuggled into this in places. If it's teaching kids about sexuality at an appropriate age, that's one thing. If it's sexualizing kids, that's quite another.

 

[Lursa]

Do I think kindergartners through 6th graders should be taught about the health aspects of sucking cocks and taking it up the ass? Not really, no. You?

They arent. Are you that poorly informed? It seems so. As for 6th graders...they're 11 and 12 yrs old...basic health aspects of sex are relevant...some of those kids are about this start having sex, "birth control and health aspects are important.

There is such a thing as age-appropriate. If you have kids, you'd know. My 6 year old doesn't really need to know about how to please the glans of a man's penis or to remember to pay attention to the balls, IMO. What do you think?

And why are you assuming it's not? Let's see sources saying 6 yr olds are being taught sex techniques on ball-handling?

It's not the school's business to instill sexual mores. They are empowered to control behavior on school grounds, prevent misbehavior, and the like, but they aren't the religious or moral instructors of my kids or yours. I raise my kids with a healthy understanding of human physiology, and without hang ups about their bodies and funcitons. However, my six year old hasn't had instruction yet about dating, sex, sex acts and gender, because I don't believe she needs that right now, and she can have a more innocent childhood not involving those things. It is not, in my view, the school's job to teach about the merits or demerits of promiscuity, just as I do not want a religious teacher telling my kids that sex is bad except in the marriage bed and except in missionary position, I don't want blue-haired nose ring girl telling my grammar school kid that taking it in the ass is a good sexual alternative that eliminates the risk of pregnancy.

Where did I say it was? That is the question I have out to the OP, who has been avoiding it.

Sure, and it's not the school's business to address that. It's my business as my children's parent.

I guess not. "Safe sex" affects all society. If you dont teach your kid...they might get someone else's pregnant or share an STD.

What's just fine? Some people say promiscuity is fine. Some people say sex early and often is a good, healthy way to be. Some people encourage girls to have sex so that they will defy the stigma of girls being sluts and boys being heroes by having sex. Others think you have to do the "Christian side hug" until you're married, or it's evil. Which is correct is not the school's business. IMO.

I gave my opinion, I did not even imply it should be shared in school classes.

I do not like the idea of schools being in loco parentis. The are there to a job - educate the kids on academic subjects, not moralize to them.

I dont either but too many parents do shitty jobs and sometimes, their lack or ignorance or neglect can affect other kids or society.

 

[Lursa]

I'm not sure there is a significant moral aspect to it, or if there is, it's secondary. I'm more interested in the practicalities: If we want fewer STDs and teen pregnancies, are we better off with school-taught sex ed, or without it?

And I answered that. With TV, movies, Internet, and older brothers and sisters, they know all about 'many' aspects of sex. Sex ed teaches the safety and health aspects...but it doesnt glorify or encourage sex. If anything, it brings it down to the nuts and bolts and organic aspects. I remember some really nasty pics of the results of STDs. Pics/video of childbirth were awful. We had to pick partners and do married couple budgets, including our first 'baby.' Our classes were all about 'reality.' And not very 'encouraging.'

 

[Lursa]

Completely agree. My own suspicion is that depravity is being smuggled into this in places. If it's teaching kids about sexuality at an appropriate age, that's one thing. If it's sexualizing kids, that's quite another.

And what would the purpose of that be?

 

[rickc]

I don't believe sex Ed has any effect on the number of teenagers that choose to have sex. It is a biological drive that is peaking in adolescents.

What we need to educate them in is the repercussions from having sex, STD and pregnancy, and how to protect yourself from them.

Also about watching out for sexual predators.

Plenty of bad information out there on the street.

 

[Rumpel]

I'm not asking really about the practicality of it, about how it would be effectively banned. I'm more asking what you think the general outcome would be.

What is K12?
Sounds like a new tooth paste?