Sex Ed taught in Grade1 now!

[ToadBrother]

Who do you believe when bombarded with contrary but often apparently valid information. If the question is about sociology, ethics, morality you have to go with what you think is right. Thats personal choices. These matters come down to what individuals believe. I object to some opinionated school teacher going beyond the mandate of academic teaching, and I object to the ministry if they say that's how it should be done. It should be my right to teach them. It comes down to the power of the state vs the individuals.

Why teach about the Holocaust? Why teach about the germ theory of disease? I mean, so far as I can tell you've basically stated that you're an epistemological nihilist. Perhaps you'd better pull your kids out when they teach them about F=MA.

There's a point at which objections and criticisms just simply become hard-headed prejudiced opinions. YOu don't even care whether your opinions have merit. So long as you can cast any doubt, no matter how spurious it may be, you somehow feel you've bested everyone else. It's as anti-intellectual as you can get.

Don't let your kids be taught sex ed at school. So far as I can tell no one was advocating overriding parents' wishes. But if this is the low opinion you hold of knowledge, then I kind of feel sorry for your kids.

[Sir Bandelot]

It's not 'anecdotal' in terms of studying data, this is an example of wrongdoing, in which case a single validated instance warrants investigation.

If you know of these things, it's your duty to report them. If you don't have the stomach for it, most large organizations now have snitch lines to help you.

It's not my duty to report anything, any more than it is my duty to get nailed to a cross. But I do not doubt for one second that any large organizations, government or private have such corruption going on. As for snitch lines, yes they do offer some level of protection like whistle blower laws. I have seen how they work. In the first instance you are protected by whatever authorities there are, until the investigation is done and corrective actions carried out. Then a few years later, is when they come for you. Once the attention has died down. And if you are let go under whatever pretence, good luck trying to get another job. The corporatists use their communication networks to ensure that snitches are branded as such, using anecdotal information...

[Sir Bandelot]

Why teach about the Holocaust? Why teach about the germ theory of disease? I mean, so far as I can tell you've basically stated that you're an epistemological nihilist. Perhaps you'd better pull your kids out when they teach them about F=MA.

There's a point at which objections and criticisms just simply become hard-headed prejudiced opinions. YOu don't even care whether your opinions have merit. So long as you can cast any doubt, no matter how spurious it may be, you somehow feel you've bested everyone else. It's as anti-intellectual as you can get.

Don't let your kids be taught sex ed at school. So far as I can tell no one was advocating overriding parents' wishes. But if this is the low opinion you hold of knowledge, then I kind of feel sorry for your kids.

I said that I support teaching academic knowledge. Well ToadBrother, no need to get personal. It's not about me.

I'm sorry you don't get my point. I did not mean to upset you. If you want to discuss any of this further, we can still do that.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Michael Hardner]

It's not my duty to report anything, any more than it is my duty to get nailed to a cross. But I do not doubt for one second that any large organizations, government or private have such corruption going on. As for snitch lines, yes they do offer some level of protection like whistle blower laws. I have seen how they work. In the first instance you are protected by whatever authorities there are, until the investigation is done and corrective actions carried out. Then a few years later, is when they come for you. Once the attention has died down. And if you are let go under whatever pretence, good luck trying to get another job. The corporatists use their communication networks to ensure that snitches are branded as such, using anecdotal information...

Great. I'm going to bookmark your post for the future, in those cases where people say that Muslims aren't vigilant enough with wrongdoers in their midst. This scenario compares well against that, in terms of consequences etc.

[ToadBrother]

I said that I support teaching academic knowledge.

Except where it intrudes upon your own sensibilities, of course.

Well ToadBrother, no need to get personal. It's not about me.

Hey, you're the one who thinks, beyond any rationale I can imagine, that anecdotal evidence is in fact superior to methodologically interpreted evidence.

I'm sorry you don't get my point. I did not mean to upset you. If you want to discuss any of this further, we can still do that.

I think I get your point quite well. You don't like sex ed, so you'll gladly suspend all reason or logic to defend your position.

[Sir Bandelot]

Except where it intrudes upon your own sensibilities, of course.

Objective knowledge is not the same as matters of ethical or moral choice. I support the right of people to self determine what they think is right and wrong, not the school.

Hey, you're the one who thinks, beyond any rationale I can imagine, that anecdotal evidence is in fact superior to methodologically interpreted evidence.

Not true, I only doubt that such methodolgy truly exists anymore. If it ever did...

How many times have we seen that science has been corrupted, by greed or ideology? Especially in areas of social science, there are many unknown factors that come into play. The data can be presented in many ways, taken to mean many things.

I think I get your point quite well. You don't like sex ed, so you'll gladly suspend all reason or logic to defend your position.

Come on Toadbrother, I'm sorry

[Mr.Canada]

If they're going to teach about homosexuality I hope they teach both sides of the story as backed up by science.

Such as anal sex is not good for you and damages the participants body as the anal cavity is not made for sexual intercourse and that the life expectancy for homosexuals is much shorter then that of heterosexual couples. These are backed up by science so if they're going to teach one they need to teach both sides of the story.

[Smallc]

Such as anal sex is not good for you

You do realie that it's actually probable that far more heterosexuals (in total) than homosexuals engage in anal sex.

[lukin]

You do realie that it's actually probable that far more heterosexuals (in total) than homosexuals engage in anal sex.

Do you, or wyly, or toadbrother have the statistics to back up your claim?

[Smallc]

I don't really need statistics for this particular claim (though if I say something, it's a good bet I've read it somewhere, even if I can't remember where). In this case though, it isn't hard to find or figure out:

http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexinformation/a/anal_sex_stats.htm

http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

Edited April 24, 2010 by Smallc

[capricorn]

You do realie that it's actually probable that far more heterosexuals (in total) than homosexuals engage in anal sex.

IIRC, statistics state some 10% of the population is homosexual. So it's not a stretch to conclude that of the 90% that is heterosexual, more than 10% of that group engages in anal sex. The numbers speak for themselves. In addition, it's interesting to note that anal sex is also sexual activity that is sure not to result in pregnancy, a fact which may account for heteros opting for this alternative.

[Michael Hardner]

Not true, I only doubt that such methodolgy truly exists anymore. If it ever did...

How many times have we seen that science has been corrupted, by greed or ideology? Especially in areas of social science, there are many unknown factors that come into play. The data can be presented in many ways, taken to mean many things.

But it's the same methodologies that are used for all kinds of objective information gathering. There are abuses, but like all lies they are eventually found out. The system, for the most part, works and the evidence is all around you.

Sometimes after a political poll is published, someone who doesn't like the result accuses the polling firm of corruption. Does that make sense ? Does any polling firm like a political party enough to destroy its reputation by lying about the results ?

Similarly, academics and researchers in all the sciences risk everything by being lazy or deceptive in their studies.

[Michael Hardner]

... the anal cavity is not made for sexual intercourse ...

They don't go anywhere near the level of explicitness that you are asking for here. Read the curriculum.

[Michael Hardner]

Why would this happen ? At which school were you "at" ? When were you at it ? I'm so unconvinced of this that I want to look up the statistics.

Still no answer from Lukin on this one and I'm starting to wonder if it was fabricated. I would accept a retraction at this point.

[wyly]

anal sex taboo is a religious one...quite common around the world used as a birth control or just for pleasure...

"In 2002, 11% of males and females aged 15-19 had engaged in anal sex with someone of the opposite sex; 3% of males aged 15-19 had had anal sex with a male." so among teenagers heterosexual anal sex is greater than among homosexuals... CDC-since these are teenagers the percentages will rise as they age by way of sexual experimentation and the remainder of their peers become sexually active as well...

“According to a 2005 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” “40 percent of men and 35 percent of women between 25 and 44 had engaged in heterosexual anal sex. Some studies put the incidence of anal sex in the heterosexual population as low as 24 percent and some as high as 56 percent. Averaging those numbers, let’s say 38.8 percent of heterosexuals engage in anal sex. Ninety-six percent of Americans are straight. There are 190,000,000 adults between the ages of 18 and 65 in the United States, so that means 70,771,200 adults are engaging in heterosexual anal sex. Four percent of the adult population is gay, or 7,600,000 people. Roughly half—3,800,000—are gay males. Polls indicate that between 55 and 80 percent of gay males participate in anal sex. Taking the average—67.5 percent—that means the number of gay men having anal sex comes to 2,565,000.”

the problem with sex surveys is people lie (either boasting or modesty) so accurate numbers are hard to come by...

[lukin]

Still no answer from Lukin on this one and I'm starting to wonder if it was fabricated. I would accept a retraction at this point.

It is true Mike. I saw it. I don't need fabricated stats to prove a point.

Edited April 24, 2010 by lukin

[bloodyminded]

Yes the vast majority of teachers will. On the most part they are very good people. But that still will not stop the pedophile or homosexual teacher from putting their obvious slant on things.

That's a pretty greasy and unfair conflation you're playing with.

[Pliny]

and then there's self imposed ignorance...

Apparently the world exists in a test tube.

your inquisitive mind actually looked into this objectively....oh wait you didn't, Netherlands teenage abortion rate is 4 per thousand... Canada's 13.8 per thousand tell me it ain't so pliny

they start having sex later than Canadian kids, fewer teenage pregnancys, fewer teenage abortions, fewer teenage STD's and it's not even close, they are much better than us...

so I guess it is a an effective sex-ed program after all...

Not conclusively.

There are other factors in society that affect these statistics sex ed is only one factor.

There are certain anomalies in the data you present. For instance Sweden with a very liberal sex ed program has similar statistics to the US.

You accept the statistics you quote for the Netherlands and conclude they are the result of sex education alone.

The flaw in your thinking is that once a scientific conclusion has been reached you accept no further data. Especially one that refutes an earlier conclusion you have agreed is true. You basically allow no further data to be reviewed. It's case closed.

Well, we both know, and if you had any understanding of science at all, that the case is never closed.

Look over the statistics for Sweden and North America and tell me why they are statistically similar in regards to unwanted pregnancies and abortions yet Sweden has a similar sex ed program to the Netherlands?

I can assume you don't have a uni degree and neither does Lukin, without the ability to research independently gaining a degree is impossible, what teacher would ignore research as a learning tool, which Lukin and you have openly spurned...an education requires learning to how research in order to learn....

Obviously, since you refute and ignore all research beyond conclusions you agree to, I can assume you don't have a uni degree.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Pliny

[lukin]

Apparently the world exists in a test tube.

Not conclusively.

There are other factors in society that affect these statistics sex ed is only one factor.

There are certain anomalies in the data you present. For instance Sweden with a very liberal sex ed program has similar statistics to the US.

You accept the statistics you quote for the Netherlands and conclude they are the result of sex education alone.

The flaw in your thinking is that once a scientific conclusion has been reached you accept no further data. Especially one that refutes an earlier conclusion you have agreed is true. You basically allow no further data to be reviewed. It's case closed.

Well, we both know, and if you had any understanding of science at all, that the case is never closed.

Look over the statistics for Sweden and North America and tell me why they are statistically similar in regards to unwanted pregnancies and abortions yet Sweden has a similar sex ed program to the Netherlands?

Obviously, since you refute and ignore all research beyond conclusions you agree to, I can assume you don't have a uni degree.

Excellent post pliny. Sweden is a mess. The Netherlands isn't the great country that wyly would have all believe. Rampant drug use is a major problem in Holland. Maybe Holland's teens are putting off sex because they are too stoned to know what to do.

[Michael Hardner]

It is true Mike. I saw it. I don't need fabricated stats to prove a point.

Ok - what area of the country and what time period was this ?

[lukin]

Ok - what area of the country and what time period was this ?

Look, it happened. Let's just say it's happened more frequently in the last 4 years.

I thought it was only the kids who didn't receive sex-ed who were prone to getting pregnant, however, I've seen teens who had taken sex-ed become pregnant. How can that possibly be.

Mike, are you saying that most kids who DO NOT take sex -ed will end up becoming pregnant or acquiring an STI?

[Michael Hardner]

I thought it was only the kids who didn't receive sex-ed who were prone to getting pregnant, however, I've seen teens who had taken sex-ed become pregnant. How can that possibly be.

Mike, are you saying that most kids who DO NOT take sex -ed will end up becoming pregnant or acquiring an STI?

Yes, Lukin, I think you were misinformed and all of this makes sense now. There are no guarantees that education works, nor that people who are educated or not will make a certain choice.

The point is that education has the overall effect that the program is designed for. Here's a study:

National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine

[wyly]

There are certain anomalies in the data you present. For instance Sweden with a very liberal sex ed program has similar statistics to the US.

You accept the statistics you quote for the Netherlands and conclude they are the result of sex education alone.

The USA is nowhere near Swedens stats and neither is Canada, the USA is the hands leader in this issue among industrialized countries, it's not even close...want the stats again these are a bit earlier from a different source ( Unicef 2001)

Netherlands-live births 7.7 , abortions 3.9, combined 11.6...

Sweden- live births 7.7 abortions 17.7 combined 25.4...

Canada- live births 22.3 abortions 22.1 combined 44.4...

UK-live births 29.6 abortions 21.3 combined 50.9...

USA- live births 55.6, abortions 30.2 combined 85.8...

and Sweden has no abstinence programs...and from an earlier link I posted the UK intended to follow the Netherlands as a guide and not Sweden's as the better sex-ed system....

The flaw in your thinking is that once a scientific conclusion has been reached you accept no further data. Especially one that refutes an earlier conclusion you have agreed is true. You basically allow no further data to be reviewed. It's case closed.

the flaw in you data is you have none, you make up stuff as you go along, you have no idea how to research...I have data you have ?? nothing...

you claimed netherlands had high abortion rate when it in fact has one of the lowest, why? because you can't research...you now claim Sweden has a pregnacy rate equal to USA and it's not even close, why? again because you can't research...science is all about research, not opinion based on personal beliefs...

Edited April 24, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

Excellent post pliny. Sweden is a mess. The Netherlands isn't the great country that wyly would have all believe. Rampant drug use is a major problem in Holland. Maybe Holland's teens are putting off sex because they are too stoned to know what to do.

another myth based on uniformed opinion how unscientific of you, a teacher you say

despite it's lax drug laws Netherlands has half the rate of Marijuana use as the USA and only 25% of the USA's herion use...and the USA has 3 times the cocaine use...it's drug problems are worse than neighbouring countries which means significantly less than the USA

nope, you have no research ability you're not a teacher and never were, like Pliny you base your opinion you facts you make up

Edited April 24, 2010 by wyly

[Pliny]

Excellent post pliny. Sweden is a mess. The Netherlands isn't the great country that wyly would have all believe. Rampant drug use is a major problem in Holland. Maybe Holland's teens are putting off sex because they are too stoned to know what to do.

I don't know the reason why the Netherland's has such low statistics as regards teen sexual behavior. I do know that sex ed is not the reason.

The social sciences like to pretend they are scientific but when it comes to human behavior there are no hard and fast axiomatic rules with accompanying mathematical formulae.

Wyly is quick to cry "conspiracy theory" if anyone suggests that some human element is influencing social proclivities.

We do know that there is a global perception of overpopulation and that planned parenthood, other family planning agencies and governmental inclinations are geared towards de-population and policies supporting such. Their perception being that there are too many people and not enough resources.

We have to look at what sex ed is trying to achieve that wasn't being achieved.

Before there was sex ed, unwanted pregnancies were on the rise, single parent families were on the rise, STDs were being spread, economically unwanted pregnancies occurred.

The problem was determined to be a lack of sexual education and the solution was increasing sexual education. Sounds simple.

What was occurring in society regarding sex was not even considered a contributor to these increasingly negative statistics. It was the time of free love and the emancipation of women. There was a general attack on the family unit until today there is no real observable necessity to it.

So is sex education the real solution and is a lack of sexual education the actual problem?

What could be more simple to understand than place penis in vagina for a mutual good time. Use a condom to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. Not much more education is necessary. Technique is usually a matter of individual preference. I suppose you could talk about that but then we are getting into the psychological aspects of sex which is a personal and individual thing and hardly educable subject except perhaps in only general terms.

In the end, I don't think school is the place to get a sex education. The only reason I can think of for having sex ed in schools is to save humanity from destroying itself from over population but even then it won't destroy itself by that, population will just decline to a viable level.