Ohio GOP want to prohibit "gateway" talk in sex Ed classes

[Mr Saturn64 742]

So thisgroup of Ohio republicans want to ban sex Ed classes from discussing anything that could lead to "encouraging" students to have sex. Personally, I think they're putting a bit of hyperbole on what should be banned here.

Now, I don't know how that all leads there, because I'm actually Forever Alone's twin brother, so, yeah. What are your opinions on discussing stuff like that in school?

Really, if you try and not talk about that, they're going to want to experiment with themselves, and eventually that's going to lead to stuff like general awkwardness and maybe even a spread of STD's. So, any opinions?

[Duke87 1,070]

You generally should link to an article when you want to post a story. Here's one I Googled up.

 

The push here is of course the classic abstinence only push, which is based on the philosophy that if you teach someone how to do something you are condoning it and encouraging it. Which seems logical and in some cases probably is... but teenagers will have sex with or without encouragement, so the logic breaks down on this particular subject.

 

There is something to be said for keeping your pants on until you are a bit more mature. High school is old enough to have sex physically but too young to really appreciate it seriously from an emotional perspective. But you can't expect that all kids will follow this advice and for the ones who don't, you'd rather they be safe - and so you really have to teach them how to, or you're going to end up with kids catching STDs and getting pregnant because no one taught them that just pulling out is not effective or whatever (there's lots of myths about sex that young people who are uneducated about it believe).

[nukeu123 307]

children (at a mature age) should absolutly learn and understand  sexual reproductive origans functionality and saftey,

i much rather have my children know the correct, and responsible way to "have fun" than that to have them suppressed and confused, and end up screwing up!

 

These modern politics have come too far in personal rights, i say leave it up to the individual to make the decision on how the child should become educated, not the govt. 

[Wiimeiser 452]

I voted "don't remember", I had sex ed in school but I don't know if it was a "gateway" class or anything(If it was then I'll need to re-vote yes...)

[da-mattster 2]

I had the standard health class in the 6th Grade where Boys and Girls were in separate classes to learn about sex organs and all that stuff, pretty basic stuff. I don't remember too much of what was discussed as that was quite some time ago. In 9th Grade there was more of an indepth Sex Class that my parents chose for me not to attend. What I missed in there I really don't know nor care. My parents chose to teach me that sex was something to have after you were married, that is our belief. And I believe it is best to wait for Marraige as well. I slipped and had sex with my fiance about a month before the wedding but that didn't change anything, she was the first and only. And I think a sexual relationship is a sacred thing that should be reserved for the person you want to spend the rest of your life with. 

 

I think self control is something that should be stressed, obviously you can't control kids, some will experiment regardless of upbringing or what school teaches them. I think its really up to the parents to decided what is best for their childs education.

[LexusInfernus 908]

We had sex ed in school. Learned all about how the reproductive organs worked, as well as about safe sex. They made us slide a condom over a fake penis and that was about it. And it did not make me want to go out and have sex any more than what is usual for a 15 year old boy. 

 

In any case, you can't fight biology with abstinence, so you might as well arm your kids with the knowledge that will make their first time a safe and hopefully fun experience. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

When I got my sex ed class it was by the health teacher and he happened to be the basketball coach.  His parting words were "If you do go on the loose, use a safe."  Now this was in 1950.  The coach was pretty strict, and was embarrassed to have to teach this class, but it was on the curriculum.  He was a practising Roman Catholic, but the school was secular.

 

Interestingly enough, most of the teen pregnancies in my high-school era were Catholic girls.  I wonder what the girls health teacher said to the girls in their segregated health sessions.

 

At this time, getting "caught" was a serious stigma.  The girls disappeared and wound up at a different school after whatever.  I know of at least one who dropped out and simply had her baby.  In those days, it wasn't simply bad luck, it was socially fatal.

[Bdub01 201]

Regardless of whether there is a sex Ed class or not teens will have sex or do other sexual things (use your imagination since this is pg ). I was lucky to have my parents do the whole "birds and bees" discussion. Many kids nowadays do not. I went to high school in TN in the late 80's so no sex Ed there.

At least with sex Ed classes they might be able to learn a thing or two about protection. I now live in south TX and the teen pregnancy rate is high here. I believe better sex Ed is needed.

For the ones who say the schools have no right to teach sex I could understand that decades ago. But now between tv and movies kids get bombarded with sex related stuff all the time. As for teaching abstinence I see nothing wrong with that but teens will be teens. It's like telling me not to go to a buffet 10 feet away . I'm going to eat and I'm going to enjoy!!!

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

People who discourage sex education really need to be punched in the face. They are the ones encouraging sex amongst young 'uns as they rebel.

 

I believe in teaching the kids to do it safe so that if they choose to rock the casbah, they know to wrap it up.

[hym 358]

People who discourage sex education really need to be punched in the face. They are the ones encouraging sex amongst young 'uns as they rebel.

 

Aside from the fact that there is no need to be encouraging violence against anyone, there is the very real fact that the issue is far more complex than this.  Some rebel against their parents by doing the exact things they are told not to, while others do not do this.  Some have parents who consider it to be no big deal, so the teenager takes the same approach, while some do not do this.

 

Both sides of this debate have valid points.  Teenagers are best served when they are well informed about the issue, but at the same time, this discussion is probably best handled on a per-person basis, as no two individuals are going to have the same questions, concerns, ideas, needs, etc.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Oh yes, because really, you want to be alone with your teacher to have a chat about sex. If there is one thing that would make a lot of people super uncomfortable, it is to have a chat like that with your teacher. 

[hym 358]

I was thinking of the teenager's parents, actually.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Parents are unreliable. A lot of parents push for the abstinence only approach because that is also what they believe. A school can be above the personal feelings of parents and act in the best interest of the teens, not the best interests of the parents personal believes. 

[Bdub01 201]

Parents are unreliable. A lot of parents push for the abstinence only approach because that is also what they believe. A school can be above the personal feelings of parents and act in the best interest of the teens, not the best interests of the parents personal believes. 

Sorry but I call shenanigans on that!!!!  What the parents want should always be above the school or gov for that matter when it comes to their children.  What a school may see as being "in the best interest of the teens"  may not be what the parents feel.  That's starting to sound socialist or communist, the whole "it takes a village" mindset.  just sayin'...

[hym 358]

Parents are unreliable. A lot of parents push for the abstinence only approach because that is also what they believe. A school can be above the personal feelings of parents and act in the best interest of the teens, not the best interests of the parents personal believes. 

 

Unreliable or not, parents are a factor in the issue (as they usually are in a person's education in general).  If the parents are not an involved component, then the teenager may very well not receive what he/she needs.

 

Realistically, a school is only as effective as the parents allow it to be.  If the parents are of the opinion that the school is going over their heads, there will likely be a negative outcome for it.  To a certain extent, a school best serves its students when it respects the wishes of those students' parents.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Sorry but I call shenanigans on that!!!!  What the parents want should always be above the school or gov for that matter when it comes to their children.  What a school may see as being "in the best interest of the teens"  may not be what the parents feel.  That's starting to sound socialist or communist, the whole "it takes a village" mindset.  just sayin'...

 

Indeed, when it comes to public health what the parents want is...less of a priority. And this IS a matter of public health as study after study has proven that in areas where abstinence only is preached, STD's are more widespread and people have an increased risk of getting an STD than in areas where safe sex is also taught. If parents want to stress the importance of waiting until after marriage, that's fine, but public health should not take a backseat because of some personal convictions of a group of parents. 

 

 

Unreliable or not, parents are a factor in the issue (as they usually are in a person's education in general).  If the parents are not an involved component, then the teenager may very well not receive what he/she needs.

 

Realistically, a school is only as effective as the parents allow it to be.  If the parents are of the opinion that the school is going over their heads, there will likely be a negative outcome for it.  To a certain extent, a school best serves its students when it respects the wishes of those students' parents.

 

Sadly parents are sometimes stupid idiots. Respecting their wishes means going backwards rather than forwards. For example, I recently read a story of an area somewhere in the US where parents are in charge of organizing prom night, which is subsequently not open for colored students. Furthermore, we have seen stories of parents in the school board making homophobic comments about students, and it were parents that pushed for schools to teach utter nonsense as a valid scientific theory. 

 

Yes, include parents as much as you can, but be prepared to ignore them when it becomes clear that their wishes are just downright stupid or harmful. 

[Mr Saturn64 742]

I posted the OP from the iPad, which does not provide links. Sorry 'bout that.

We have said that they need to learn about their bodies and what's going on at that age.

I took "health" in 8th grade a co-Ed (groan) sex Ed class that was really nothing less than the teacher monotonously talking about it while trying to be funny every once in a while. But the parents still have a responsibility in this. They can talk to their child about being safe or educating them about sex in general.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

The fundamentals of the birds and the bees is the duty of all parents.  Schools are responsible, perhaps for discussing the risks and proper behaviour.  These days, parents don't do their duty and probably because they have abdicated their responsibility in the name of convenience. 

 

And it does not matter one whit whether the parents are single or a gay couple.  They have this duty to any children for whom they are responsible.

 

Human reproduction is just that.  Society surrounds it with many taboos and shibboleths, mostly due to general foolishness.  Teens should be made aware of the consequences of that unprotected roll in the hay.

[Mr Saturn64 742]

I agree that the parents should have more responsibility, but if it's a homosexual couple, then yes, schools could have a thing for them,mbut it's really the parent's responsibility for that.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

 

Parents are unreliable. A lot of parents push for the abstinence only approach because that is also what they believe. A school can be above the personal feelings of parents and act in the best interest of the teens, not the best interests of the parents personal believes. 

Sorry but I call shenanigans on that!!!!  What the parents want should always be above the school or gov for that matter when it comes to their children.  What a school may see as being "in the best interest of the teens"  may not be what the parents feel.  That's starting to sound socialist or communist, the whole "it takes a village" mindset.  just sayin'...

 

And what's wrong with socialism?

 

The push here is of course the classic abstinence only push, which is based on the philosophy that if you teach someone how to do something you are condoning it and encouraging it. Which seems logical and in some cases probably is... but teenagers will have sex with or without encouragement, so the logic breaks down on this particular subject.

On a side note, people seem to have this mentality regarding suicide, in that if you bring it up it will give them ideas and push them to it. In fact, this is the complete opposite where talking about it and a simple "are you okay?" can really help. Many already have the thoughts, and openly discussing it (by openly I mean privately between several trusted people as opposed to bottling it) can be beneficial.

 

Oh yes, because really, you want to be alone with your teacher to have a chat about sex. If there is one thing that would make a lot of people super uncomfortable, it is to have a chat like that with your teacher. 

 

 

Not necessarily true. I didn't enjoy my high school years but there were several teachers there that I would feel comfortable discussing matters like that with.

Anyway to the point, I do see how people would want the parents to discuss it, but what if the kids and parents have ideologically different mindsets? My parents are non-practicing Christians with the "no relations before marriage mindset", whereas I am a stout atheist who has his first sexual experience with a girl at 17 of whom is no longer in a relationship with.

I think this is something that shouldn't be blanket banned, but allowed with an optional "opt out". Because honestly it is a good idea to teach kids this even if to fill in the gaps from what they may or may not know.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

I think I've said before that socialism is just fine until you run out of someone else's money.

[macvirt 361]

Sex education at school and at home is one of the most useful buffer mechanisms against the socio-environmental stimuli children are bombarded with outside of the extended family unit / circle (which includes school btw), which is pretty much everywhere else. And no, the solution is never segregation or isolation, that only results in group dynamics incapable of functioning among / collaborative with / competitive to other group dynamics. It's something that guarantees costly conflict.

 

The mere idea of going against such a much needed buffer mechanism is beyond stupid. Truth be told, it is dangerous. Not just for children as individuals, but even more so for society as a whole as group behaviour always changes through individual behaviour being internalised by social dynamics. 

[Dr. Boom 37]

Depends if it costs the taxpayer. More classes: more maintenance. That being said, I'd love for this type of school education. It would particularly be beneficial for the lower and underclass, whom isn't exactly the best with birth control.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

However one might look at the costs of education, the fact is we are dealing with the future.  These kids will be in charge in only a few years.  Wouldn't it be nice if they had less cynicism and more forthrightness?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Depends if it costs the taxpayer. More classes: more maintenance. That being said, I'd love for this type of school education. It would particularly be beneficial for the lower and underclass, whom isn't exactly the best with birth control.

Sex ed classes only save tax payer money in the long run. They prevent STD's and teen pregnancies and thereby reduce health care costs and other social costs associated with teen moms. And the money you save out on those costs is way more than what it costs to give kids sex ed. Its also easier for those people to remain in school, which means they can get better jobs, which means they are less likely to get into welfare. 

[Bdub01 201]

Well I wouldn't say they PREVENT STDs and pregnant, but they do educate teens about that sort of stuff!

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well I wouldn't say they PREVENT STDs and pregnant, but they do educate teens about that sort of stuff!

States in the US that focus on abstinence only sexual education have higher teen pregnancy rates and higher STD rates, while states that promote the use of contraceptives and condoms have significantly lower rates. Therefor it is safe to say that they do prevent STD's and teen pregnancies. 

[timmie 988]

Wait, you people are talking about high school? I had sex ed in the sixth year of primary school (at the age of 11-12). Reproduction, menstruation, STD's, relations,... Also, in Belgium, boys and girls are not separated to have sex ed... I am pretty confident the positive aspects outweigh the negative aspects (if there are any). Also, I don't think anyone in my class started earlier with sex because of those classes. I rather think the opposite is true: if I remember well, well-informed kids start later with sex. Important is also the part on relations: do only what you like, don't be afraid to say no,...

[Duke87 1,070]

Wait, you people are talking about high school? I had sex ed in the sixth year of primary school (at the age of 11-12). Reproduction, menstruation, STD's, relations,... Also, in Belgium, boys and girls are not separated to have sex ed...

 

I had sex ed in 8th grade (ages 12-13, the end of middle school). Wasn't gender separated at my school but I can't speak for elsewhere. Usually it is thought of as more of a high school subject, though, and indeed we did discuss it again in 10th grade (ages 14-15).

 

We did also have a talk in school about puberty in 5th grade (ages 9-10), which was gender separated, and they only taught you about your gender. So they discussed with us how the male reproductive system works but didn't discuss anything about sex itself.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

The basic problem in my early years is that it was very Victorian still right after WW II.