It seems like everyday I find new reasons to want to send my own kids (when I have them) to private school one day. In a time when teachers aren’t adequately teaching kids the stuff they should learn (reading, writing, math, history, etc.) it’s hard to imagine why any parent would want their kid to go through sex ed in school.
But to me, there’s a bigger problem. Sexual education is no longer about the basics for sake of having the knowledge… there’s actual incidents where there’s a clear violation of parents’ rights and the sexualization and indoctrination of young kids.
IMAGINE you have a 10- or 11-year-old child, just entering a public middle school. How would you feel if, as part of a class ostensibly about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, he and his classmates were given “risk cards” that graphically named a variety of solitary and mutual sex acts? Or if, in another lesson, he was encouraged to disregard what you told him about sex, and to rely instead on teachers and health clinic staff members?
That prospect would horrify most parents. But such lessons are part of a middle-school curriculum that Dennis M. Walcott, the New York City schools chancellor, has recommended for his system’s newly mandated sex-education classes. There is a parental “opt out,” but it is very limited, covering classes on contraception and birth control.
Observers can quarrel about the extent to which what is being mandated is an effect, or a contributing cause, of the sexualization of children in our society at younger ages. But no one can plausibly claim that teaching middle-schoolers about mutual masturbation is “neutral” between competing views of morality; the idea of “value free” sex education was exploded as a myth long ago. The effect of such lessons is as much to promote a certain sexual ideology among the young as it is to protect their health.
So, what do the parents in our readership think? What do you about things like this. Is sex ed good or bad? Is it the job of the school (read: the government) to determine what your kids should and shouldn’t know about the facts of life?
Blogs For Victory 
It’ll be interesting to read comments from some of the younger readers of this blog. I can’t recall sex education in school when I was growing up in the 50’s, other than the biological side of it.
There are three days in my life that I recall with vivid memory: the day Kennedy was shot, the morning of 9/11, and the day I learned about sex.
I learned about sex, in, of all places, as a 10-year-old at church day camp, from whom, of all people, but our pastor’s 12-year-old son. Of course the first thing I did when I got home was to ask my mother if the incredulous things I had heard were true, half expecting her to say, “no, of course not”. She was standing at the kitchen counter preparing dinner, and, without missing a beat, she said I had heard correctly and asked if I wanted to learn more about it. I’ve always wondered how many parents actually have an open and honest conversation with their kids about the act that keeps our civilization going. It seems a sad commentary on our society that we relegate that responsibility to our schools.
Is it relegating the responsibility or providing a safety net for children with bad parents?
If you’re talking about the biology of sex, then I’d tend to agree with you. No girl should get pregnant in middle school or high school because she didn’t understand how it happens. I’m probably just old-fashioned, but I don’t believe that the schools should be teaching the moral aspects, or the “how to” aspects of sex. But your distinction is valid in that It appears to me that we have a lot more bad parents than when I was young.
ya…but when you were young…they actually taught sex ed based on physical science…not relative emotions using pornographic descriptors provided by homosexuals and liberals who dont respect monogamy…
NO
A few years ago it was made public that Boulder High School in Boulder, Colorado, otherwise known as the Peoples’ Republic of Boulder, had for several years had a group of people come to speak to the students in a mandatory assembly.
These speakers promoted drug use, told the students that any kind of sex is great (boy on boy, girl on girl, boy on girl, “it’s all good”) and in general not only approved of various kinds of activities that are usually frowned upon, at least for kids as young as 13 or 14, they openly advocated these behaviors. One man informed the students of how much better sex feels without a condom.
I heard actual recordings of these lectures, and was appalled to learn that these same speakers had been invited back year after year.
You should check a little more into that story before you parrot whatever Bill O’Reilly reports (or whatever crap “news” outlet you get your information from). For instance, the clip about how condoms make sex not as pleasurable is actually a hypothetical reason for not using a condom that the speaker then turned around and shot down, advocating that condoms always be used.
Not to say what happened there was the way sex ed should be taught necessarily, but making informed decisions just gets that much harder when you have to sift through so much garbage to figure out what actually happened.
you missed the point again corystooge…then again…did we expect any less from you…
go back to the brimstone pain…you dont belong here
Well, Cory, I never heard O’Reilly talk about this. I happen to live within range of some Denver radio stations and when this all happened some shows played long audio clips of various lectures and discussions. And the comment had nothing at all to do with your assertion. On the contrary, it was a snickery aside in a monologue about sexual intercourse where the speaker said that quite simply sex does not feel as good with a condom.
Do you just make this stuff up? Whatever you are talking about has nothing at all to do with the many detailed transcripts and recordings of what these people told these students.
I do, however, agree with your assessment that listening to the lectures these degenerates gave to Boulder High students is best described as “sifting through garbage”.
Which is also an accurate assessment of wading through your Leftist posts. You may or may not have heard something on some conservative program about some person talking about condom use, but you immediately snaped to the default position of the RRL that any comment on the sexualization of children comes from a highly edited and therefore deceptive clip by Bill O’Reilly.
You guys are so predicable, and so transparent.
“Do you just make this stuff up?”
Actually, you got caught making stuff up, hence your oh-so-predictable projection. I’d say that explains your cattiness here, but let’s face it–you’re always catty.
Fine, you listened to sensationalized accounts from local news media outlets. Either way, your story is bogus, and the clips you listened to had their context chosen very carefully such that they were made to say things they never actually said. I am not making this up, and I had not actually heard of the incident until you mentioned it. The difference, of course, is that I bothered doing some cursory background research on the story, at which point I found out that what you were saying was initially misreported and eventually determined to be not true.
What you are going to come back with is anecdotal evidence about how you heard the audio clips yourself and how they weren’t short or taken out of context, only unless you actually post these “detailed transcripts” that demonstrate what you are talking about, I’m not going to believe a word of it.
Having dealt with this issue for many years on a public school board, my opinion is this:
1) The feds have no business telling individual schools what they need to teach as far as sex ed. They send their Title monies over and think they can pull strings, I don’t think that is right, unless the U.S. Constitution has been amended lately ….however,
2) The state (at least in our case) does have the right under the U.S. Constitution to make laws in general regarding this type of issue. For example, they could require public schools to teach age appropriate sex ed curriculum. It is at this point that the districts should be able to step in and choose the curriculum. Unfortunately, many times, the states ‘approve’ limited numbers of curriculum to choose from and it is here that I disagree. My belief is that the schools should be trusted to follow the initial law, that the state doesn’t need to ‘approve’ curriculum.
BTW, there is always opt out provisions on these based on religious practices or any other protected characteristic. I guess I look at it the same way as I would if your question dealt with schools that were teach students how to load and shoot firearms….the state could require the schools to teach it, though the districts should have leeway on how they do it and parents could opt out based on protected characteristics.
fact is…schools should be strictly limited in thier curriculum as to what they teach our kids…
those limits should be the empirical scientific base…not the socially engineered theory…about sex…
while they sit there and force discussion about sexual behavior, which is purely a social issue…they neglect the scientific facts…and thats whats wrong with schools today…
facts are the truth…they demonstrate statistics STDs…AIDS…the real basis of an educated child can only be achieved through the use of facts…not some social theory developed by a sodomite who happens to have a social degree in whatever…but social facts based on medical science…
this is the failure of the government system…they did not insure that the feelygood topics they have forced society to adopt is based in sound, scientific facts…
I don’t even know what you’re talking about. All opinions about what was posted aside, how are risk rates for various sexual interactions not based on science?
its been well documented that simple facts confuse you corystooge…
oh well…
Yeah, why bother answering questions when you can just throw around insults and then pat yourself on the back.
“I don’t even know what you’re talking about.”
Ahh, cory that is the first step – acknowledging your problems and shortcomings.
Out of curiosity, do you even finish reading my posts, or do you take the first thing you think you can quote and make fun of and stop reading there?
Sex ed. in schools is bad.
Sex ed. is the responsibility of parents to teach their children, according to what thus sayeth the Word of the Lord is.
Sex is part of man and woman in the bonds of marriage. Marriage is the backbone of the society, called family. It is the duty of every living individual.
Sex outside of marriage/family, is destruction of society … it does not continue to propagate and prosper the society, but it undermines it, until the society eventually collapses … how? you might ask…well, there are more children born into the world who do not have sufficient care from two parents, one is forced to care for the child/children, and thus the one parent becomes dependent on the government/taxpayers money….the more individuals that become dependent on the government in this manner leads to a larger and larger sector of society becoming dependent on the government until that government has complete control of that society, and therefore, communism ensues, and the many atrocities that go along with it.
So you can see why liberals, socialists and communist minded oriented people would want to advocate out of wedlock sex, it is their goal to seek the destruction of this country we call America, and therefore, the control of this country by communist powers.
So no, my advice is, do not send your children to a public school, because you are furthering the undermining of this country by liberals by giving them the future, your children to brainwash them into living lifestyles that destroy this backbone of this country, the family.
Momma Grizzly, herself, could have benefited from your sage advice, Jeremiah. Having at least two of her grandchildren conceived out of wedlock tends to point to a sad lack of parental guidance in matters of sexual conduct in tune with moral Christian family values.
cO
PDS and stupidity are your traits Kanuck
Meow. And yet another Leftist apologist tries to wrap himself in the flag of righteous Christian indignation at the acts of others.
The thing about values and standards is that they stand as ideals, as goals, as desired behavior. When people fall short of those goals, as people are wont to do, then the question is, how do they handle the consequences of those shortfalls in ideal behaviors?
On the Left, the ideal solution is to simply butcher the inconvenient children, in the womb our out of it, while to people of conscience and morality the solution is to accept responsibility and move on, hopefully having learned from the experience.
But it takes a Canadian “Observer” to sneer at those who do take personal responsibility for their actions as well as to try to lecture on “moral Christian values”. Watching CO snivel about “moral Christian values” is kind of like watching Rosie O’Donnel carry on about civility or diets.
BTW, love that comment “…at least two of her grandchildren…” CO is a bitchy little thing, isn’t he?
In Palin’s case, Amazona, if she did indeed do her parental duty in providing the necessary sex education to her cubs, it wasn’t much of a success, was it?
I hope you are honest enough to admit that it is not only right-wing pregnant females who elect to keep their out-of-wedlock babies or that it is not only liberal females who elect to terminate their pregnancy. You cannot possibly be that dense.
some numbnutz just dont think…the public schools that educated palins cubs…lent more to the decay of those cubs than the parents did…
if the schools stayed out of the parents duty…per chance…parents would have a much more valued place to teach from…but instead…stooges and progressive sluts find it easy to aquire teaching certificates…and stick thier noses where they dont belong…teaching immorality to children is like giving them poison candy on halloween…by the time they eat it and make it home…its too late to save them….and its very difficult to catch the scum that passed it out…
“And yet another Leftist apologist tries to wrap himself in the flag of righteous Christian indignation at the acts of others.”
But it’s OK when you do it, right? Riiiiiiight.
Canadian Observer chumped you pretty good there, and you’re struggling to resist the point, as you always do.
the only thing the kanuk got was a face full of shxt…when false messiahs play king of the hill they normally fall like lead ballons…
fact is…if omission and ignorance were all it takes to get to heaven…kanuk is sure to go…but it taint so, eh….now go eat your shoe somewhere that you have something in common to discuss…surely playing cheerleader to stooges isnt such a righteous cause…
It would be very good for our public schools to concentrate on teaching the basic academic disciplines that are necessary for youth to participate successfully in society, particularly in regard to some of the basic economic and historic factors of living together with other people. Sex education and the details of intimate sexual relationships should be taught by parents to their children in their homes. Some adult parents may not have had a good education in these matters, but they can learn from teachers who have a good basic moral perspective on sex and sexual relationships between men and women. Children and youth will be eager to learn such lessons, but they are not mature enough to discern some of the dangers of lessons in sex and sexual behavior that are really physically and mentally and morally unhealthy. And they may not realize such “dangers” until they become “sick”, and then it may be too late.
a little red head named beatrice wore skirts and when the teacher turned around proceeded to show me and my buddy the difference in our anatomies.
The same for a family friend C in the back of our garage.
My friends older brother filled in the rest.
They do not teach sex “education” they shove the homosexual agenda, abortion, bestiality, and random sex.
liberalism is a mental disorder.
“liberalism is a mental
disorderDISEASE”corrected…they can be saved…albeit…rarely
“Sex Ed In Schools: Good or Bad”
I vote for good education. There’s plenty of bad sex education after school and on the weekends.
Are you sure you want that extra word tagged onto your Trackbacks/Pingbacks?
yikes
I totally agree with jeremiah 110%. Its the parents job not the school.its makes me sick that the parents let the government teach the kids so the parents don’t have to.Or because public school are free to send your kids so they can save a buck.
And abortion is”murder”!!!!!!!!!!!!