Sex Ed taught in Grade1 now!

[wyly]

However, we are fooling ourselves. They ARE adults, both biologically and socially! If they are still socially immature that is a fault of how we regard them, not of their capability to learn.

We have built an "assembly line" structure to achieving adulthood that does not correspond with reality. No wonder we seem to be at a loss as to how to handle the problems generated by having a flawed structure in the first place!

It is probably hardest for young women. They are under strong hormonal drives to reproduce. They are often discouraged by "social zealots" from using birth control as it might lead to actually HAVING sex! Too often, they end up having sex anyway.

Meanwhile, they can't marry at the traditional age of 16-18. They need higher education not just to support themselves if they make that life choice but to contribute to a family income if later on they do marry!

Fooling with Mother Nature always has consequences...

all true wild bill...

in our past when we were all hunter gathers the average age would be around 30 so it was extremely important that the reproduction cycle start early 13-16...that would give the parents if they got their 30 yrs in enough time to pass on their survival knowledge to their offspring, that meant being an adult at 13-16...it's unfair to expect teenagers to resist natural biological drive and not give them the knowledge to cope with it...

[Pliny]

At last! A thread full of logic and reason! I think you've nailed the most important point of the entire thread, TB.

We do have a social and biological contradiction. Somehow, over just a few generations, we have extended the concept of childhood or at least adolescence to a far higher age than ever before. There was a time when by 16 a child was considered full grown. Not necessarily experienced but capable of making their own way in the world and would learn from their mistakes and successes.

Definitely a point to consider.

Perhaps society should be structured so that families are started at an earlier age. Our elementary and secondary education takes far too long. One could choose to delay higher education over starting a family. By the time his children are grown he is still young enough to continue higher education unless he has already found a career or vocation that he chooses to remain in.

I am not one that advocates everyone go to university and get a degree. It only cheapens the value of the degree if everyone has one.

There are many improvements that could be implemented in the structure of society. Social engineers just seem to be so myopic.

Their biggest flaw is in removing individual choice.

[Michael Hardner]

Life expectancy for primitive tribes was estimated at 24-37.

Google Books

[ToadBrother]

Definitely a point to consider.

Perhaps society should be structured so that families are started at an earlier age. Our elementary and secondary education takes far too long. One could choose to delay higher education over starting a family. By the time his children are grown he is still young enough to continue higher education unless he has already found a career or vocation that he chooses to remain in.

I am not one that advocates everyone go to university and get a degree. It only cheapens the value of the degree if everyone has one.

There are many improvements that could be implemented in the structure of society. Social engineers just seem to be so myopic.

Their biggest flaw is in removing individual choice.

Don't misconstrue me. I'm not advocating we return to pre-Industrial times. We can't anyways. The economic reality is that it's all but impossible for kids at 16 years of age to gain the skills necessary to support a family. This isn't the 12th century any more.

What it does point out is that how we view our children, and the time line of maturity we apply is hopelessly out of sync with biology. Obviously, even a thousand years ago, sixteen years of old was pretty much considered an adult; getting married, having children and so on. Now we debate whether it's right to teach a thirteen or fourteen year old about sex, and for much of our history, that was within a couple of years of full sexual and cultural maturity (and in some cultures, thirteen or fourteen was probably considered mature).

Since our culture has a view of maturity so divergent to biological maturity, we have to face the fact that instinctual behaviors can and will override any cultural taboos. The best we can hope to do to prevent economically unfeasible pregnancies (and, after all, that's really what it boils down to when we say we don't want a fifteen year old girl getting knocked up). That being the case we'd best get over the "they're teaching sex to kids" crapola, face biological reality and if it means circulating condoms and reproductive advice then so be it. Much better than hiding our heads in the sand, pretending our kids won't be having sex, and then be shocked when one of them comes home with a bun in the oven.

[ToadBrother]

18 year olds flew Spitfires, becoming Squadron Leaders. Women of the same age drove ambulances through battlefields in war torn Europe, or ferried airplanes across the Atlantic into Britain.

I don't know how prevalent it was in WWII, but in WWI they had fifteen year olds signing up to fight the Hun, and the need for soldiers was such that recruiters and officers were basically looking the other way when some pimply-eyed kid declared he was 18. Some of those guys are still alive and kicking today. The real shift came after WWII, probably the biggest alteration since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. A generation of kids were raised in prosperity the likes of which the world had never known before, and within a single generation being 16 years old went from entering adulthood to literally be the mid-point in an adolescence that extended into the 20s.

[wyly]

Life expectancy for primitive tribes was estimated at 24-37.

so about 30...

years ago I saw a program on an Amazon Indian tribe where a boy about 13/14 to meet his test of adulthood was required to live on his own in the forest for a week to confirm he could look after himself and a family...this done he would be accepted ready to be a man/adult and he could marry which he did with another 13/14 yr old...he completed his task...

depending where on the globe you lived life could be short and brutal, have kids early and raise them to adulthood fast...

[wyly]

Now we debate whether it's right to teach a thirteen or fourteen year old about sex, and for much of our history, that was within a couple of years of full sexual and cultural maturity (and in some cultures, thirteen or fourteen was probably considered mature).

and considering the tight communal living styles of the past there would be in many cases no attempt to hide what was going on, the kids would see what mom and dad were getting up to at night, sex wasn't kept a secret...

[Michael Hardner]

so about 30...

When you said average age, were you referring to avg. life expectancy.

[Pliny]

Don't misconstrue me. I'm not advocating we return to pre-Industrial times. We can't anyways. The economic reality is that it's all but impossible for kids at 16 years of age to gain the skills necessary to support a family. This isn't the 12th century any more.

No, this isn't the 12th century. Why did they treat teens as adults then and we treat teens like children?

I am saying that society's general perception of teens is that they are still children and that is the wrong perception. Society limits them when they are quite capable. The idea has become that the child needs to get a college education so that he can make a good living in society. As everyone gets degrees it becomes less and less relevant to their making a good living. We see PHD's driving cabs and such.

What it does point out is that how we view our children, and the time line of maturity we apply is hopelessly out of sync with biology.

This is true. Is our view out of line? Or do we continue to keep maturity out of sync with biology?

Obviously, even a thousand years ago, sixteen years of old was pretty much considered an adult; getting married, having children and so on. Now we debate whether it's right to teach a thirteen or fourteen year old about sex, and for much of our history, that was within a couple of years of full sexual and cultural maturity (and in some cultures, thirteen or fourteen was probably considered mature).

True again. Teen pregnancies were not a concern then. They weren't a social burden or a burden on the state. They mostly managed with the help of the extended family.

We teach sex ed not entirely for the benefit of the teenager but for socio-economic reasons. Just like with "universal" health care we will eventually exclude treatment for what the state deems risky lifestyles, like smoking. Everyone will be required to learn proper eating habits - as determined by science, of course. You know, margarine instead of butter, low sodium intake, no red meat, no fast foods. If we don't take it seriously they will eventually have compulsory courses for us to take.

Since our culture has a view of maturity so divergent to biological maturity, we have to face the fact that instinctual behaviors can and will override any cultural taboos. The best we can hope to do to prevent economically unfeasible pregnancies (and, after all, that's really what it boils down to when we say we don't want a fifteen year old girl getting knocked up). That being the case we'd best get over the "they're teaching sex to kids" crapola, face biological reality and if it means circulating condoms and reproductive advice then so be it.

I don't believe that is facing biological reality. Why can't we change society to better reflect our biological reality? Facing biological reality would be allowing teens to have families and to work. We don't want them to work. We want to waste their time and teach them crap in school. Allowing teens to work is considered exploitation.

We have to make society more accommodating to individual needs and choices and not judge whether someone is too young to be working. I think there does have to be good guidance and not just letting kids do what they want when they are kids. The amount of guidance and discipline a child needs will vary with every child, some will always need guidance and discipline but I suspect most by the time they are 12 or 13 can be living with very little guidance and discipline - perhaps not entirely on their own but the family would have to be a strong unit to be accommodating to all circumstances.

Much better than hiding our heads in the sand, pretending our kids won't be having sex, and then be shocked when one of them comes home with a bun in the oven.

We need more flexibility and choice in society. Our parents and grandparents demanded of their kids they get an education. That was prime. The State in it's great benevolence said it could provide that. The fifties were perhaps too strict and the seventies too liberal. The point where a child starts making decisions in their lives that are enabling and conducive to providing in the future is the point where he he can start running his own life and discipline and guidance fall off in indirect ratio. I'm betting the majority would be almost on their own at 12 or 13. We all need guidance and help at times and we all need to continue learning but we don't need streaming which is what we are getting in today's society.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Pliny

[wyly]

When you said average age, were you referring to avg. life expectancy.

I was, but reading my post again I can see I wasn't clear on that...

Edited April 27, 2010 by wyly

[Michael Hardner]

We have to make society more accommodating to individual needs and choices and not judge whether someone is too young to be working. I think there does have to be good guidance and not just letting kids do what they want when they are kids. The amount of guidance and discipline a child needs will vary with every child, some will always need guidance and discipline but I suspect most by the time they are 12 or 13 can be living with very little guidance and discipline - perhaps not entirely on their own but the family would have to be a strong unit to be accommodating to all circumstances.

We need more flexibility and choice in society. Our parents and grandparents demanded of their kids they get an education. That was prime. The State in it's great benevolence said it could provide that. The fifties were perhaps too strict and the seventies too liberal. The point where a child starts making decisions in their lives that are enabling and conducive to providing in the future is the point where he he can start running his own life and discipline and guidance fall off in indirect ratio. I'm betting the majority would be almost on their own at 12 or 13. We all need guidance and help at times and we all need to continue learning but we don't need streaming which is what we are getting in today's society.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, and a lot of the problems with the system is that it's built to over-educate people into the middle class. Of course, the demand for that lifestyle is high so the government has to supply college and university spots. Meanwhile, if you quit school and work in a skilled trade, you will be earning far more than a university graduate by the time you hit 25.

But we need to keep in mind the way society works. During the industrial era there were children working long shifts in factories, in unsafe conditions.

[Pliny]

But we need to keep in mind the way society works. During the industrial era there were children working long shifts in factories, in unsafe conditions.

Working conditions are now much safer than school conditions.(See top disciplinary problems of teachers below)

I think we have gone overboard with the "children should not be working" mantra. We have gone from the scenario of "long shifts in factories in unsafe conditions" to nothing. An education is important but it must be an education and not the stultifying experience it is today.

The top disciplinary problems according to public school teachers in 1940 was:

1. Talking out of turn

2. Chewing Gum

3. Making noise

4. Running in the hall.

In 1990 it was:

1.Drug abuse

2.Alcohol abuse

3.Pregnancy

4.Suicide

That from: The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators by William J.Bennett.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Working conditions are now much safer than school conditions.(See top disciplinary problems of teachers below)

I think we have gone overboard with the "children should not be working" mantra. We have gone from the scenario of "long shifts in factories in unsafe conditions" to nothing. An education is important but it must be an education and not the stultifying experience it is today.

Ok, well I'm of the opinion that these incidents are overblown, and that it's difficult to compare social problems to a past era where problems were hidden from view.

Education might better be viewed as a lifelong obligation - something that we need to do periodically, when it's useful for us and when it's useful for society.

One path I could see people going in is working at 16, then returning to school at 25 or 30 and working for a long time, then returning for retraining. Education would need to give people life skills, as well as specific technical skills at every stage.

[M.Dancer]

The top disciplinary problems according to public school teachers in 1940 was:

1. Talking out of turn

2. Chewing Gum

3. Making noise

4. Running in the hall.

In 1990 it was:

1.Drug abuse

2.Alcohol abuse

3.Pregnancy

4.Suicide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e6UPS1vAcU

[wyly]

Ok, well I'm of the opinion that these incidents are overblown, and that it's difficult to compare social problems to a past era where problems were hidden from view.

Education might better be viewed as a lifelong obligation - something that we need to do periodically, when it's useful for us and when it's useful for society.

One path I could see people going in is working at 16, then returning to school at 25 or 30 and working for a long time, then returning for retraining. Education would need to give people life skills, as well as specific technical skills at every stage.

what worthwhile work can a 16 year do?..nearly every job today requires training, those that don't are generally dead end jobs...I can't think of many skilled trade jobs that don't require post secondary training...and once kids quit school to work very few go back...

returning to school at 25-30 then working for a long time before returning for more retraining? how long is a long time? once someome is in their 50's they are more or less done, no one will hire a trainee in his/her 50's for any meaningful work, maybe they can be a greeter at walmart...

[Born Free]

what worthwhile work can a 16 year do?..nearly every job today requires training, those that don't are generally dead end jobs...

Hey!!! Even doing french fries requires skills...

[Michael Hardner]

what worthwhile work can a 16 year do?..nearly every job today requires training, those that don't are generally dead end jobs...I can't think of many skilled trade jobs that don't require post secondary training...and once kids quit school to work very few go back...

returning to school at 25-30 then working for a long time before returning for more retraining? how long is a long time? once someome is in their 50's they are more or less done, no one will hire a trainee in his/her 50's for any meaningful work, maybe they can be a greeter at walmart...

There are many jobs that don't require training, or provide on-the-job training.

A long time could be 10, 15, 20 years.

Nobody is 'done' in their 50s... everybody is worth hiring at a price.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[wyly]

There are many jobs that don't require training, or provide on-the-job training.

very few offer a viable future that will elevate them out of poverty...quitting school early is like a teenage girl getting pregnant and keeping the baby, their lives are basically screwed...few progress

A long time could be 10, 15, 20 years.

meanwhile back in the real world few people are financially able to quit their job, support their familes/mortgage/debt for retraining and pay for further education...you make re-education seem so easy, it's anything but easy...

Nobody is 'done' in their 50s... everybody is worth hiring at a price.

"done like dinner"...I recall a meeting televised years ago it was for fishery workers who lost their jobs because the government closed the fishery...one of the fishers who was in his mid 50's asked the government reps what he was to do at 55 for work..the official told him he was pretty much screwed, at his age to take job retraining was a waste of time, no one is going to hire a rookie pushing 60 with retirement only a few years away, they want young guys who are going to be around for awhile...

your ideas may sound good in theory but the reality is very different...

[Michael Hardner]

very few offer a viable future that will elevate them out of poverty...quitting school early is like a teenage girl getting pregnant and keeping the baby, their lives are basically screwed...few progress

Ok, but that's their choice. Does it make sense to keep them beyond 16 years old if they're just wasting their time.

...meanwhile back in the real world few people are financially able to quit their job, support their familes/mortgage/debt for retraining and pay for further education...you make re-education seem so easy, it's anything but easy...

How did I make it seem easy ?

I think I just said that we need to provide education throughout peoples' lives.

"done like dinner"...I recall a meeting televised years ago it was for fishery workers who lost their jobs because the government closed the fishery...one of the fishers who was in his mid 50's asked the government reps what he was to do at 55 for work..the official told him he was pretty much screwed, at his age to take job retraining was a waste of time, no one is going to hire a rookie pushing 60 with retirement only a few years away, they want young guys who are going to be around for awhile...

your ideas may sound good in theory but the reality is very different...

There were likely some other factors at play here. My hometown closed many factories and opened up call centres instead. Yes, the work pays a lot less but as we have seen, there much less willingness to protect jobs where labour costs exceed the global market for that skill.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[wyly]

Ok, but that's their choice. Does it make sense to keep them beyond 16 years old if they're just wasting their time.

I've spent the majority of my a life in the construction industry, I can't speak for every employer but highschool graduation was a minimum requirement, if a kid din't have at least that indicated he/she had an attitude/behavioural issue or was too stupid...and today most young people are required to have technical training before they enter the skilled trades...at 16 their good for unskilled labour or retail and not much else...

How did I make it seem easy ?

I think I just said that we need to provide education throughout peoples' lives.

that's available now is it not? it's just very impractical...the education should be done while they have their parents for support not when they have their own families, it's too late...I've brainwashed my kids to get their degrees now no quitting until that's done...get the education out of the way establish themselves finacially and then as you suggest 15-20 yrs down the road they can afford to retrain if they wish...and even then this is a difficult task with a family and debt, for someone with minimal education I can't imagine how difficult it must be, I really admire those who do manage to do it...

There were likely some other factors at play here. My hometown closed many factories and opened up call centres instead. Yes, the work pays a lot less but as we have seen, there much less willingness to protect jobs where labour costs exceed the global market for that skill.

which is why the drive for University degrees and technical training, we can't compete with global market in jobs that require minimal education... Edited April 27, 2010 by wyly

[Michael Hardner]

that's available now is it not? it's just very impractical...the education should be done while they have their parents for support not when they have their own families, it's too late...I've brainwashed my kids to get their degrees now no quitting until that's done...get the education out of the way establish themselves finacially and then as you suggest 15-20 yrs down the road they can afford to retrain if they wish...and even then this is a difficult task with a family and debt, for someone with minimal education I can't imagine how difficult it must be, I really admire those who do manage to do it...

Your kids would be way better off in construction. Unless they go into something specific - which takes several more years of training - a skilled trade is in shorter supply than a general degree.

I see lots of construction workers in their 50s in downtown Toronto, seemingly earning a good living.

But yes, it's available now - only it's expensive and it's not tailored to what's needed. There's a patchwork approach to it that needs to be consolidated better.

which is why the drive for University degrees and technical training, we can't compete with global market in jobs that require minimal education...

We can't compete in technology because they charge a lot less.

[wyly]

Your kids would be way better off in construction. Unless they go into something specific - which takes several more years of training - a skilled trade is in shorter supply than a general degree

which is why two are aiming for specfic careers and are focused on those and a third will have multi-degrees...

I see lots of construction workers in their 50s in downtown Toronto, seemingly earning a good living.

it wasn't always so, it is now only because there was an entire generation focused on university education, the resulting shortage of skilled trades allowed they to charge more for their knowledge...I tried to persuade my kids to become air conditioning technicians for the money but they weren't interested, they could break a into a sweat or a nail...

But yes, it's available now - only it's expensive and it's not tailored to what's needed. There's a patchwork approach to it that needs to be consolidated better.

I can't ever see that will be any different...unless there is better financial support for those doing it, and that'll never happen...

We can't compete in technology because they charge a lot less.

we have to that's all that's left...unless we return to being a nation of lumber jacks, miners, farmers and fishers....

[Michael Hardner]

I can't ever see that will be any different...unless there is better financial support for those doing it, and that'll never happen...

Never is a long time away. Imagine going back to the 1960s and telling people "don't tell your kids to get university educations, get them to become carpenters there will be more money in it !".

And things are changing more quickly too.

we have to that's all that's left...unless we return to being a nation of lumber jacks, miners, farmers and fishers....

Not true. As I said, doing home renovations on your own seems to be doing quite well. What else ? Plumbing... real estate....

[Wild Bill]

There were likely some other factors at play here. My hometown closed many factories and opened up call centres instead. Yes, the work pays a lot less but as we have seen, there much less willingness to protect jobs where labour costs exceed the global market for that skill.

I would agree with wyly, Michael. I'm 57 and my career was in distributing electronic parts. I got in in 1977 when microcomputer chips were first invented and rode the high tech wave until 9/1/1, when it all collapsed. You may recall how back then Northern Telecom's stock had dropped from $200 a share to less than a buck! Nortel had been buying over a third of all electronic parts like ICs, transistors, capacitors and the like. When that was suddenly removed from the market we had companies that had been around for years dropping like flies into bankruptcy. Thousands of us were out on the street. The jobs have never come back. They went to China and Ireland.

Meanwhile, I sent out hundreds of resumes and knocked on all sorts of doors. Mind you, unemployment is always high in Hamilton, Ontario as the factories keep closing down and pulling out. I managed a few joe jobs but even then when layoffs came the last guy in was the first to be cut.

It's different if you are applying within your own field. Your age can be an asset as it is an indicator of experience. However, when your field is gone and you are trying for a position with something else as soon as they realize your age its over! There seems to be an attitude that they would rather have a younger worker to get more years out of him or her. I found this amusing, since history shows that after a few years that youngster would likely either be laid off or have moved on to a better job anyway!

Just how many of us older folks do you think call centres could hire, Michael? Besides, I thought all the call centre jobs were in India.

[wyly]

Not true. As I said, doing home renovations on your own seems to be doing quite well. What else ? Plumbing... real estate....

when the economy tanks no one but the wealthy or with secure jobs does renovations...as I said I've spent a liftime in construction industry when things slow down the first out of work are those in construction....

real estate is poor example a few pirates get very rich but it's not a stable career choice I'd recomend for my kids...