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]

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.