Sex ed

[pne]

In an entry in mock_the_stupid, I found this comment:

I had a Catholic latin teacher and her attitude to sex was that you should wait until you're married. However, if you don't then this is what you need to know. It was the most sensible perspective I've ever heard.

I think I like the way that was phrased and it sounds like a viewpoint I could hold.

Comments

[jpallan.livejournal.com]

See, I'm not with you two.

I enrolled my daughter in public school (Philip - council school) a couple of years ago.

I was horrified by the curriculum.

The curriculum when I attended Catholic school was simple. History. Maths. Science. English. French. Catechism. Fin. No physical training, no health classes, no art classes, no music classes. My parents had the option of sending me to the nuns during lunch recess to attend music or art lessons -- my parents put me up for piano training -- but they were one-on-one lessons, with a sharp rap to the knuckles if need be by the Ruler O' Doom.

My daughter's curriculum consists of Math Worksheets, English - Writing, English - Reading, Social Science (wtf is that?), Science Explorations, Art, Health, Music, and Physical Education.

A. I pay damn good money for my daughter to receive art and music training by qualified instructors who only instruct those children who are interested in the subject, as opposed to subjecting the entire community to using a recorder (I had to look up what it was, and when I saw it, it looked stupid.)

B. Why do I have to teach my daughter the parts of speech and drill her in times tables while they subject her to coloring in bunches of things to symbolize inequalities? She does not need to know the concept of inequalities until she gets to algebra, at which point they're self-explanatory.

C. Why are English Reading and English Writing different? You read something, you write about it. This ain't rocket science and they ARE complementary disciplines.

D. And why in fuck are a bunch of people teaching my child about their views of sexual morality? My daughter knows about abortion, homosexuality, contraception, birth, etc. They also had a two week unit on washing hands and don't stick your finger in your eye. WTF is that about? What the hell do they think my job is?

Why can't my job be to teach her about religion, the arts, cultural involvement, communitarian living, and hygiene and THEY can drill her in the times tables? What the fucking fuck.

These people would have a helluva lot better time teaching their kids not to have sex if they felt that was right (I don't -- I think it's a bad thing to base marriage in any part on sexual fulfillment) if they actually turned off the television, talked to their kids about what they believed in, and brought them to the religious worship of their choice.

[elgrande.livejournal.com]

I think you're overinterpreting the fact that it's about a teacher, to which the previous poster and pne didn't refer at all, I believe. It was all about the attitude in general.

"D. And why in fuck are a bunch of people teaching my child about their views of sexual morality?"

- You don't know if that Latin teacher worked at a catholic school
- or if he was an RE teacher as well as a Latin teacher. (My Latin teacher was, for example.)
- Teachers talk about other opinions they hold, too. I see no reason for not talking about one's religion. The "if you don't.." bit even shows that the teacher did not try to impose his views on his pupils. The quote didn't say the teacher spent all the time talking about his religion instead of teaching his pupils Latin.

[jpallan.livejournal.com]

Given that the commenter in question specifically stated Latin teacher, I would suspect that was his subject of specialisation.

I see every reason for not talking about one's religion in a school situation that is not parochial. Having been educated in convent schools, every subject was taught in the context of Catholicism, and that's fine, but part of the reason I send my daughter to the quite inferior public schools here (the other option is Waldorf, and Rudolf Steiner was more than a bit nuts, despite my general agreement with the natural-living and attachment-oriented philosophy, the weird science and blatant racism are Not Okay) is to avoid the religious-oriented hazing.

I was a Catholic who married a Protestant, which crossed me into the Enemy camp. I remember Protestant kids getting beaten up by Catholic kids when I was in Catholic school. I raise my daughters Unitarians, in part because I can no longer agree with the Church and in part because I don't want to permanently alienate them from their father. So, yes, I don't want my daughters taught another religion's morality in their day to day schooling. That's obscene and a direct infringement on the separation of church and state as well as a direct affront to my parental authority.

If an instructor cannot manage to set an example of his or her religion through their actions instead of their words, then they don't belong in secular situations.

[elgrande.livejournal.com]

"Given that the commenter in question specifically stated Latin teacher, I would suspect that was his subject of specialisation."

Here teachers have to specialise in at least two subjects, so to me it seemed more likely that RE may have been his other subject.

"I was a Catholic who married a Protestant, which crossed me into the Enemy camp. I remember Protestant kids getting beaten up by Catholic kids when I was in Catholic school."

Just because some people are intolerant doesn't mean others can't say their opinion.

Teachers can also say what TV programme they like or dislike, can't they? Are you afraid some kids will start beating up other children who watch stuff on TV that their teacher doesn't like? I don't really see a problem here.

Of course, teachers should not impose their religion on their pupils (I had only one teacher who always tried to... that sucked), but just occasionally, perhaps jokingly, throwing in a sentence or two like "Well, as a catholic I believe that one should..." doesn't seem to do much harm. It never bothered me anyway.

"a direct infringement on the separation of church and state as well as a direct affront to my parental authority."

Ok, we don't have a clear separation of church and state here in Germany, but there would certainly be a conflict with one's right to freedom of religion. Anyway, I see your point.

But I also think the teacher may have said that out of class. I learnt a lot about my teachers otside the lessons.

Umm, to get back on topic, do you share the teacher's attitude?

[jpallan.livejournal.com]

American religious tolerance tends to be wavy because there's a) so many issues with people equating Muslims with terrorists and b) the Christian right is currently a major political power. Those who aren't Christians (i.e. myself) have a lot of trouble in this atmosphere, so it touched a nerve. Sorry to argue.

No, I don't share the teachers' attitude, because I don't believe lack of premarital sex is a healthy sexual expression, period. I think it's very limiting and very unhealthy, and having known people, both male and female, who refused to have sex outside of marriage -- they ended up in miserable marriages and soon divorced. This is at least 8 separate instances. I'd rather see people having protected sex outside of marriage than getting divorced with young children and no real regard for each other. As a divorcée myself, I know how hard the situation can be to handle.

My current partner, the one I think I'm likely to marry, was a virgin when we met. We explored sexuality early on in our relationship, with protection in mind and without any real expectations of the relationship continuing for a long time. I would hate to have had held off and found that the mystique of sexuality was my major attractant, another thing I've observed.

I support the right of parents to teach their own children about their sexual morality, which may include anti-homosexual and anti-premarital sex stuff. I'm sure there are people who try to tell their twelve-year-old sons not to masturbate, too, with varying levels of success. I don't share the teacher's attitude at all, but I don't teach other people's children about sexual morality. As a mother of school age children, I often get tapped randomly to explain X. "What's homosexuality?" came up once when my older daughter (7 years old) had a friend over, who asked that. I simply said it was what happened when two adult men or two adult women had a relationship similar to what one adult man and one adult woman might have. Fin. None of my usual lecture to my kids on how that's a valid choice and if I hear them gay-bashing they're in for it; none of the "they're going to hell for their choices", either. It's simply a fact.

I feel that schools, if they choose to teach sexuality education, should present the bare facts of human reproduction, preventing reproduction, terminating pregnancy, carrying pregnancy to term, the transmission of veneral diseases, the use of prophylactics. No "This is great, explore this" like I tell my daughters. [Or, more specifically, "Alicia, when you're a few years older, you might get interested in this, and if you want to explore it, talk to me and we'll figure out the best ways of contraception, rape prevention, etc."] No "You're going to hell for doing this." There are facts and there are opinions, and in an area where there's no scholarly debate, it's not up to the school to present opinions. That's for ethics class. :P

[When there's substantial debate, that should be covered to point out the possibility of falsehood in the source material -- i.e. The Children's Crusade -- which ventures into opinion, but in general, personal opinions don't belong in classrooms. Personal positions on material are one thing, but one's feelings on another person's personal qualities or on your own morality are totally different. "I believe that the Children's Crusade consisted of drifters, mostly men under the age of twenty, did happen because X" is one thing, for example.]

Of course, I'm flying on pain medication, so I'm totally making no sense. :)

[pne.livejournal.com]

I support the right of parents to teach their own children about their sexual morality, which may include anti-homosexual and anti-premarital sex stuff.

*nods* That's really where I was coming from with that quote -- as a viewpoint I could hold or transmit to my children. The fact that the quote originated from a teacher was incidental to my point.

See, sometimes I'm still trying to figure out the position I should hold on this or that. I think that people shouldn't have sex outside marriage, but I can see how abstinence-only information is not likely to help since not everyone is a perfect little angel and thing will happen, but I haven't thought things through completely. And the attitude in the quote seemed like a reasonable approach that meshed with my values (which I'd like to transmit to my children) and with necessary information.

I'm sure there are people who try to tell their twelve-year-old sons not to masturbate, too, with varying levels of success.

*nods*

I feel that schools, if they choose to teach sexuality education, should present the bare facts of human reproduction, preventing reproduction, terminating pregnancy, carrying pregnancy to term, the transmission of veneral diseases, the use of prophylactics.

That sounds reasonable.

[leora.livejournal.com]

For a parent, I think it's a completely reasonable and sensible way to handle the matter if you feel premarital sex is wrong. :)

My objections, like jpallan's, are just with the borders between what schools should do and what parents should do. But it sounds like quite sensible parenting to me. Not my personal views, so I wouldn't raise my own children that way, but views and attitudes I can respect.

[pne.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[leora.livejournal.com]

The quote sounded like part of a formal lesson to me. Like this was the way sex ed was being taught. And it was being taught as fact, not opinion.

I've had teachers who gave their opinions in a clear and non-objectionable way. Who were friendly and open. I have no objection to that.

I also spent a day working with a teacher who stated his political views as absolute facts, made fun of people who supported the other dominant political party in my country, and made fun of me for having gone to a good university. I felt lucky to only be a substitute teaching assistant and never worked at that school again. But I felt sorry for the students.

There are lines about what teachers may and may not do for good reasons, because having to put up with your views being mocked and ridiculed by someone with authority over you is, in my opinion, a form of abuse.

This teacher wasn't ridiculing or mocking other beliefs, and I respect that. It also doesn't sound like s/he was acknowledging their existence. And I think that's a mistake. I think it is vital to acknowledge that this is an area where many people hold many different views and it is up to each individual to decide for themselves what they feel is right and what they feel is right for them.

[pne.livejournal.com]

Why can't my job be to teach her about religion, the arts, cultural involvement, communitarian living, and hygiene

I don't have a good answer for that. Except maybe the religion bit (which was not a topic in the school I went to).

I just took it for granted that children had art and music in school.

My first reaction was that, well, maybe parents could teach their children about art or send/not send them to musical education or whatever, but some (many?) parents wouldn't, and having some measure of appreciation for art can be a part of a "well-rounded personality", so it's better if the school does it than nobody. Though this starts a debate on how much schools should be responsible for parents' shortcomings.

I suppose you'd also consider literature part of a parent's prerogative, as part of "culture" in general? And school being more for teaching things that are facts? (As exemplified by the subjects you mentioned.)

They also had a two week unit on washing hands and don't stick your finger in your eye. WTF is that about? What the hell do they think my job is?

I guess this is similar. Some parents might not teach their children about venereal diseases coming from unprotected sex. Or about catching germs or other diseases from improper hygiene. Or may fail other parts of what parents should impart to their children, simply parking them in front of the television as soon as they get home. (Consider the parents whose method of education is a sound slap around the ears and an admonition, "we don't hit other people!")

[sc00ter.livejournal.com]

"The curriculum when I attended Catholic school was simple. History. Maths. Science. English. French. Catechism. Fin. No physical training, no health classes, no art classes, no music classes. My parents had the option of sending me to the nuns during lunch recess to attend music or art lessons -- my parents put me up for piano training -- but they were one-on-one lessons, with a sharp rap to the knuckles if need be by the Ruler O' Doom."

That's all fine and good.. But the idea of a gym class is to teach you to be active. I went from the simple "go outside and play" gym class to learning about target heart rate, why physical activity is good. Also with music class it's to get kids interested and to understand something they might not get at home.

Face it, you've seen the people in the mall, at the store, walking down the street.. There's a lot of fat people that don't know anything about the arts and could give a damn. You think they're going to teach their kids anything about it?

"Social Science (wtf is that?)"

If it's like "Social Studies" like I was taught, then it teaches you about politics, the way the government works, stuff like that. Suff that's not really history, but things you should know anyway. My guess is they changed "studies" to "science" to make it sound more important.

"A. I pay damn good money for my daughter to receive art and music training by qualified instructors who only instruct those children who are interested in the subject, as opposed to subjecting the entire community to using a recorder (I had to look up what it was, and when I saw it, it looked stupid.)

And that's great that you do.. But how many of those kids in her class would never have the opertuninity to touch a musical instrument even if they wanted to?

"D. And why in fuck are a bunch of people teaching my child about their views of sexual morality? My daughter knows about abortion, homosexuality, contraception, birth, etc. They also had a two week unit on washing hands and don't stick your finger in your eye. WTF is that about? What the hell do they think my job is?"

My health class was very "matter of fact". There was no judgment put on one thing or another. These are STDs, this is what you can do to not get STDs, hey look, here's some nasty slides of people with STDs so you can see what you don't want. We were shown all different kinds of birth control. It was very educational and nothing about morals came up. There was WAY more information in that class then I ever would have gotten from my parents.

"Why can't my job be to teach her about religion, the arts, cultural involvement, communitarian living, and hygiene and THEY can drill her in the times tables? What the fucking fuck."

Religion I totally agree with. Unless you're in a religious school, then they have no business teaching that.

But as far as your other stuff... I was in public educational 1st-12th grade. After that I sub'd for 2 years, did high school theatre for a total of 6 years, and my wife is now a teacher..

There are kids that will -NOT- get any information about sex, the arts, and yes, even hygiene, unless they get it in school. I've seen kids that had to get deodorent from the nurse because the -DO NOT- have it at home, and didn't even know what it was used for until the nurse showed them.

It's sad, but it's true. A suprising number of parents are lazy and want nothing to do with raising their child.. What's left to do!

I'm not saying that these are the answers, but this is the reality of what happens and this is the way society has decided to deal with it.