I just read thisKinda sounds like getting driving lessons and being told that the surest way to avoid car accidents is to refrain from driving cars: while true, that's not the point of taking driving lessons
( Read more... )
Ahh... again something that must be learned at/in school! Is it really the purpose(?) of a scolar system? Sure the school has to provide education and student development, but... where are the limits? Who is responsible?
Here, school provides daycare (before and after school) , breakfast for those who didn't eat at home, school day hours, dinner, help to homework after school, etc... Sometimes I'm wondering if it is a good thing for the kids... It sure is different for everyone... Is school the perfect place to learn? Depend on who you see there, isn't it?
Teaching teenagers about the technicalities of sex is probably not a bad thing, and I guess many parents are glad this is done for them at school
( ... )
Interesting comments... I agree with you about some of those and still thinking about some others... I agree with the fact that sex is part of life as many other subjects and can be talked about at school... Unfortunately you can't treath(?) it as a simple technicality... (and I think this is not what you said either :-)) pArt of it is technical/biological... this is the easy part to teach/learn... easy to teach at school... the psychological/emotional(?) part is a little bit more subtile ...just like any other individual way of seeing things :-) there are more than a way... and the best is the one that respect everyone... changing, adapted to the life situation... :-)
Indeed, let me quickly point out that by 'technicalities' I didn't just mean the 'mechanics' of sex as in 'this part goes with this part'. There should be plenty of education about the emotional and psychological aspects, the required mutual respect, and that this is something you do together and for eachother. All that is included in proper sex ed, along with the anatomical and biological aspects.
I'm of a mixed opinion of this. Granted, abstinence IS proven to be 100% effect, it is sorta like you not getting fat by not eating. It's 100% effective, but not healthy. Emphasising absitnence above all others, especially mentioning the 'unmarried' part, borders on teaching religious doctrine in public schools. So... How to deal w/ it? Don't emphasis it, but DO list it as the most effective way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies. That way, the options are open. Also, with that, I suppose they would have to list all the possible consequences and options to solve the problem. *Steps down from middle-ground soapbox*
Wow! a middle-ground soapbox: you don't see THOSE very often! ;-)
And of ocurse, I'm with you on this. MENTIONING that abstinence can prevent a lot of nasty things, does't hurt, but it sounds almost too obvious to having to tell people that if they don't want to get wet, they shouldn't go out play in the rain.
And while "abstinence IS proven to be 100% effect", TEACHING 100% abstinence is PROVEN to be highly inaffective.
My biggest concern (and not yet an issue, but it will soon be when the religious right gets its say) is this teaching of ONLY abstinence, without alternatives.
True... But then, I'm sure it'll be challanged in some kind of Supreme Court thing... HOPEFULLY, someone will have to sense enough to see what's wrong before it gets to that point.ALL alternatives need to be explained. I can't wait till they try to explain homosexuality. *LMAO* THAT'LL get them off the whole 'abstinence' thing for a bit.
HAHAHAHA!! Yeah, let's promote homosexuality as a 100% proven way to prevent teen pregnancy!
*lol*
Oh, but wait, the religious right isn't against teen pregnancy: if it would be up to the Catholic church we would all marry at 16 and procreate like bunnies! They're against sex without the intent of pro-creation.
So, yeah... even MENTIONING homosexuality will probably (read: surely) get the entire religious right up in arms.
Comments 12
Here, school provides daycare (before and after school) , breakfast for those who didn't eat at home, school day hours, dinner, help to homework after school, etc... Sometimes I'm wondering if it is a good thing for the kids... It sure is different for everyone... Is school the perfect place to learn? Depend on who you see there, isn't it?
Reply
Reply
I agree with the fact that sex is part of life as many other subjects and can be talked about at school... Unfortunately you can't treath(?) it as a simple technicality... (and I think this is not what you said either :-)) pArt of it is technical/biological... this is the easy part to teach/learn... easy to teach at school... the psychological/emotional(?) part is a little bit more subtile ...just like any other individual way of seeing things :-) there are more than a way... and the best is the one that respect everyone... changing, adapted to the life situation...
:-)
:-)
Reply
There should be plenty of education about the emotional and psychological aspects, the required mutual respect, and that this is something you do together and for eachother. All that is included in proper sex ed, along with the anatomical and biological aspects.
Reply
Emphasising absitnence above all others, especially mentioning the 'unmarried' part, borders on teaching religious doctrine in public schools.
So... How to deal w/ it? Don't emphasis it, but DO list it as the most effective way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies. That way, the options are open.
Also, with that, I suppose they would have to list all the possible consequences and options to solve the problem.
*Steps down from middle-ground soapbox*
Reply
And of ocurse, I'm with you on this. MENTIONING that abstinence can prevent a lot of nasty things, does't hurt, but it sounds almost too obvious to having to tell people that if they don't want to get wet, they shouldn't go out play in the rain.
And while "abstinence IS proven to be 100% effect", TEACHING 100% abstinence is PROVEN to be highly inaffective.
My biggest concern (and not yet an issue, but it will soon be when the religious right gets its say) is this teaching of ONLY abstinence, without alternatives.
Reply
HOPEFULLY, someone will have to sense enough to see what's wrong before it gets to that point.ALL alternatives need to be explained. I can't wait till they try to explain homosexuality. *LMAO* THAT'LL get them off the whole 'abstinence' thing for a bit.
Reply
*lol*
Oh, but wait, the religious right isn't against teen pregnancy: if it would be up to the Catholic church we would all marry at 16 and procreate like bunnies!
They're against sex without the intent of pro-creation.
So, yeah... even MENTIONING homosexuality will probably (read: surely) get the entire religious right up in arms.
Reply
Leave a comment