"Sexual" education

[Massimiliano B]

If it is evident that a value or opinion is 'for life', then it is good.

But do you really mean that you would be okay with parents getting to decide that their children should be kept ignorant of all contraceptives, as long as they say this stems from a "for life" value?

If sexual education is simply theaching how to use contraceptives, it is really an unuseful subject, because usually a teen-ager already knows what is a contraceptive and how to use it (especially nowadays with the possibility to watch almost everything in internet!).

The picture also included pre-marital sex, fertility treatments and divorce as "anti-life" values. Sure, divorce rarely comes up in school, except maybe in a very basic law course. But fertility treatments might even come up in biology. If it happens to do so, would parents be allowed to pull their child out of those particular classes as well?

I don't know. It depends on the age of the students.

EDIT: Not to even mention "individualism". How many classes should parents be allowed to pull their children out of to protect them from that?

I'm trying to demonstrate that since practically anything could be called "anti-life", there would be no end to how much control parents would be allowed to have over their child's participation in public education. And from the outside, it would still be indistinguishable from whims.

Not everything [or "anything"? My English needs to be improved] can be called "anti-life". I mean that there is something which is not "anti-life". For instance, the faith in God is not "anti-life".
In regard to sexual education, it is "anti-life" to teach a young person that he/she can do whatever he/she wants with his/her body.

Something is "for life" if it is "for life". The definition is circular because there aren't clear objective and logically consistent criteria for determining whether something is "for life" or "against life". Logical consistency has nothing to do here.

Then it's all just a matter of validating your own prejudices by pretending there's some grandiose underlying principle. That's what I've been saying all along.

Which prejudices? Those concerning the worth of life? Or those about the possibility that there can be a conflict between what is taught in schools about sexual education and what some religions teach about the same topic?

Anyway, everyone knows what being "for life" means. There are no previous logical arguments that can demonstrate the worth of life. There's only your "attachment" - "bond", "devotion" - to your life (I don't how to say it in English). Logic can only start from this basis - from the foundation of your love for your life. That's the only path we can practice.

I've found some interesting articles about sexual education and contraception industry in England:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... nancy.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... xeducation

[Varislintu]

Thanks for your further clarifications, Massimiliano! I think we simply disagree, then.

Just a couple comments that your post made me think of. I recently read this article on how bad digital natives can be at using computers and solving computer related issues (or seeking solutions to them), despite the high expectations that are placed on these youngest generations in computer competency. Just because they know how to use Facebook doesn't seem to mean they learn other skills automatically. Their information and media literacy is not automatically stellar. In my opinion, neither is their sexual literacy. I think it's a folly not to seek to educate children in matters of sex and sexuality. I'm a big believer in preventative measures in general, and this issue falls in that category as well.

Furthermore, I think I also see a parents' "rights" over their child as a more problematic issue than what you do. From my point of view, often when parents exercise what they call "rights" over their children, it seems that they are not doing so in the interest of the child him/herself, but rather to convenience themselves or some restrictive belief system that they hold. Sometimes the child's holistic wisdom, personality and wellbeing seems to come very much in second place. I feel uncomfortable giving parents a carte blanche to isolate their child from anything they so choose, and I think requiring some kind of "sincere conviction" in "pro-life" ideas does nothing to stop this right from being overused or wrongly used.

[Saim]

If sexual education is simply theaching how to use contraceptives, it is really an unuseful subject, because usually a teen-ager already knows what is a contraceptive and how to use it (especially nowadays with the possibility to watch almost everything in internet!).

I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted by your gross overestimation of my generation's knowledge and capabilities.

[Varislintu]

I've found some interesting articles about sexual education and contraception industry in England:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... nancy.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... xeducation

I didn't have time to look into your articles until now. I googled the first one, which is from 2007, and it seems to be popular on alarmist, "family values" sites. However, it seems to be quite outdated. This one from 2012 reports huge drops in teenage pregnancies last year, now having brought them down to 1969 levels in England and Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17190185

The other link was from the same year as the first one, and to a bystander sounds quite paranoid in how it paints up conspiracies of the contraception industry and how some people rather want kids to have "unlawful" sex than not have it. From how you framed your introduction of these articles, and that you picked out these two specifically, I have to wonder if you also believe there is such a conspiracy going on?

[Massimiliano B]

I've found some interesting articles about sexual education and contraception industry in England:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... nancy.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... xeducation

I didn't have time to look into your articles until now. I googled the first one, which is from 2007, and it seems to be popular on alarmist, "family values" sites.

That this article seems to be popular on "family values" sites doesn't dispense us with an analysis of its position.

However, it seems to be quite outdated. This one from 2012 reports huge drops in teenage pregnancies last year, now having brought them down to 1969 levels in England and Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17190185

In the article you linked Julie Bentley, chief executive of FPA (Family Planning Association) (FPA is a UK registered charity working to enable people to make informed choices about sex and to enjoy sexual health (taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Pla ... ssociation) says that

"The fact that we're seeing the lowest teenage pregnancy figures in England and Wales for over 40 years is because of the dedicated work of professionals in relationship and sex education, contraception and local services. We must do all we can to keep the momentum going" (...)

It says also that

Labour, who were in power when the drop occurred, said it was proof that its strategy of working to improve sex education was successful and should continue.

But it says that

Experts say the trends might be driven by the economic recession.
In tough financial times, family may be valued more highly and, as parents could be out of work, they may have more time to spend on child rearing

"Experts say" - not ordinary people! - that the cause of that drop might be the parenting - not sexual education supplied by the school!

The other link was from the same year as the first one, and to a bystander sounds quite paranoid in how it paints up conspiracies of the contraception industry and how some people rather want kids to have "unlawful" sex than not have it. From how you framed your introduction of these articles, and that you picked out these two specifically, I have to wonder if you also believe there is such a conspiracy going on?

I don't think there is a conspiracy. However, I am not sure there is not!

If sexual education is simply theaching how to use contraceptives, it is really an unuseful subject, because usually a teen-ager already knows what is a contraceptive and how to use it (especially nowadays with the possibility to watch almost everything in internet!).

I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted by your gross overestimation of my generation's knowledge and capabilities.

[mōdgethanc]

I don't want teenagers to learn about sex from Internet pornography. For one thing, condom use is not as widespread as you might think in the industry, and porn actors often get STIs.

[IpseDixit]

I don't want teenagers to learn about sex from Internet pornography. For one thing, condom use is not as widespread as you might think in the industry, and porn actors often get STIs.

And also because porn sex is a bit surreal in some respects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q64hTNEj6KQ

[Varislintu]

I've found some interesting articles about sexual education and contraception industry in England:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... nancy.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... xeducation

I didn't have time to look into your articles until now. I googled the first one, which is from 2007, and it seems to be popular on alarmist, "family values" sites.

That this article seems to be popular on "family values" sites doesn't dispense us with an analysis of its position.

True, but it does seem like it is a factoid that family values sites like to keep on mentioning, even if it is outdated information. You also brought it up. (Although now I understand that the family values people like to think that the recent drop in UK teenage pregnancies is because of a rise in family values, so I guess it doesn't matter to them that it is outdated, it still fits their understanding of the events.)

What the article's position seems to be, is that easy access to contraceptives and sexual education for teenagers is bad, that it encourages and normalises sex. People it refers to seem to think that family values mean restricting this access and knowledge.

Now, I do think there can very well have been forces in the UK specifically that made their teenage pregnancy rates be that high. This I would agree with you is a bad thing -- usually teenage pregnancies are unplanned, even unwanted. But I strongly disagree that restricting access to birth control or knowledge benefits the teenagers' holistic wellbeing. I think as a measure, it's only a convenience to the parents and vocal moralisers. The article mentioned something like "natual discouragements to sex" having been erased, and I have to admit wordings like that send a tiny chill up my feminist, liberal spine. What that means is fear of pregnancy and shame of sexual activity. Especially for teenage girls. As an adult woman, I expect to have some autonomy over my sexuality, so this to me sounds a bit like purposefully handicapping teenagers, kind of like forcing them to live out the risks and realities of the Victorian era due to their age, parallel to our own, modern adult world, under the guise of it being in their best interest. I don't know, I guess I just feel like teenagers have a right to birth control and information, just as we adults do.

But sure, sexual education needs to be professional, and not add to the pressure on teenagers to become sexually active earlier than they'd wish.

I don't think there is a conspiracy. However, I am not sure there is not!

I'm happy you answered this way!

[Massimiliano B]

As an adult woman, I expect to have some autonomy over my sexuality, so this to me sounds a bit like purposefully handicapping teenagers, kind of like forcing them to live out the risks and realities of the Victorian era due to their age, parallel to our own, modern adult world, under the guise of it being in their best interest. I don't know, I guess I just feel like teenagers have a right to birth control and information, just as we adults do.

But sure, sexual education needs to be professional, and not add to the pressure on teenagers to become sexually active earlier than they'd wish.

Human beings have always lived without a sexual education - apart from the teachings offered by the family (which usually were the transmissors of the mastership of a particular religion) and by some friends. So, I don't think we need professional educators who provide something that we already had.
It seems to me that our western societies are approaching a time where everything that concerns the self-care is transferred paradoxically to any sort of "specialists" (psychoterapists, psychologists, sexologists, etc..), who have - as they claim - a better knowledge about how to manage our problems. This is not a good trend.

[linguoboy]

Human beings have always lived without a sexual education - apart from the teachings offered by the family (which usually were the transmissors of the mastership of a particular religion) and by some friends. So, I don't think we need professional educators who provide something that we already had.

Human beings have always lived without health care--apart from the home remedies offered by the family and by some friends. So I don't think we need medical professionals who provide something that we already had.

[IpseDixit]

Human beings have always lived without a sexual education - apart from the teachings offered by the family (which usually were the transmissors of the mastership of a particular religion) and by some friends. So, I don't think we need professional educators who provide something that we already had.

Yeah exactly, look around and you'll notice the consequences of that...

Professional educators are exactly needed to dispel all the false myths about sex and contraception that lots of people still believe to be true. For instance, just to name one, many people still believe that coitus interruptus is an effective contraceptive...

Not to mention the fact that HIV is quite a new thing unknown to past generations and many families still know very little about it.

[Massimiliano B]

Human beings have always lived without a sexual education - apart from the teachings offered by the family (which usually were the transmissors of the mastership of a particular religion) and by some friends. So, I don't think we need professional educators who provide something that we already had.

Human beings have always lived without health care--apart from the home remedies offered by the family and by some friends. So I don't think we need medical professionals who provide something that we already had.

No, that's not true. We have always had health care. Medicine has a long history. Sexual education is a newborn.

Human beings have always lived without a sexual education - apart from the teachings offered by the family (which usually were the transmissors of the mastership of a particular religion) and by some friends. So, I don't think we need professional educators who provide something that we already had.

Yeah exactly, look around and you'll notice the consequences of that...

Professional educators are exactly needed to dispel all the false myths about sex and contraception that lots of people still believe to be true. For instance, just to name one, many people still believe that coitus interruptus is an effective contraceptive...

Not to mention the fact that HIV is quite a new thing unknown to past generations and many families still know very little about it.

I don't say people don't need to be informed about contraceptives. I say only that such teachings have to be given in accordance with the fundamental teachings of a religion. This is what I've been saying since my first post in this thread. If there is the grounded suspect that this principe is not respected, the parents must be ensured the possibility of preventing that such teaching could be given to their children.

[md0]

This is what I've been saying since my first post in this thread. If there is the grounded suspect that this principe is not respected, the parents must be ensured the possibility of preventing that such teaching could be given to their children.

And as we have been saying since our first response in this thread, you already have that option: even in the most militantly secular country of Europe (this is, France), you are allowed to send your children to a religious school. Apparently you are even allowed to assume the education of your children yourself, at home.

[Massimiliano B]

This is what I've been saying since my first post in this thread. If there is the grounded suspect that this principe is not respected, the parents must be ensured the possibility of preventing that such teaching could be given to their children.

And as we have been saying since our first response in this thread, you already have that option: even in the most militantly secular country of Europe (this is, France), you are allowed to send your children to a religious school. Apparently you are even allowed to assume the education of your children yourself, at home.

You all also said that that option is ridiculous, stupid, nonsensical etc. etc. because religion is an unnatural and primitive way of thinking, surpassed by science and thus deleted by science etc. etc.

[md0]

You all also said that that option is ridiculous, stupid, nonsensical etc. etc. because religion is an unnatural and primitive way of thinking, surpassed by science and thus deleted by science etc. etc. That's what I cannot accept.

How does some people's opinion affect your capability of practising this right you already have?

[Massimiliano B]

Such opinion does not affect my capabilities. However you have to be aware that it is an opinion.

[md0]

Sure. But your claim was that parents should have this right (give their children education compatible with their religion), and we have proved that they indeed have this right, the state respects it and no individual or organised groups are stopping you from practising that right. Do you have any other point to bring forward or that's it?

[mōdgethanc]

No, that's not true. We have always had health care. Medicine has a long history. Sexual education is a newborn.

Modern (evidence-based, scientific) medicine is a recent invention. Quacks and home remedies have been around for a long time, sure, but those of us in the reality-based community would not call it medicine as we know it.

Besides that, if you think the Good Old Ways are really better, you ought to get off your computer and go live outside so you can catch some malaria and die before you reach 40.

[Varislintu]

No, that's not true. We have always had health care. Medicine has a long history. Sexual education is a newborn.

Modern (evidence-based, scientific) medicine is a recent invention. Quacks and home remedies have been around for a long time, sure, but those of us in the reality-based community would not call it medicine as we know it.

Besides that, if you think the Good Old Ways are really better, you ought to get off your computer and go live outside so you can catch some malaria and die before you reach 40.

I have to agree. Medicine before antibiotics, for example, was not very effective. I've even heard it claimed (by modern doctors) that before antibiotics, doctors did more harm than good for patients. This fear in some communities of hospitals and doctors can be said to have had a reasonable cause, however, times are very, very different now, and modern medicine prolongs our lives considerably.

[IpseDixit]

I say only that such teachings have to be given in accordance with the fundamental teachings of a religion.

Why?

But, anywys, ok, let's pretend that my religion supports geocentrism. Should my children be allowed to drop out of physics class?