US Elections 2008

[WanderingKnight]

I mean if most schools offer this opt out option

Then something in your education system is screwed. Big time. As in "Holy shit that could actually ruin quite a few generations"-screwed.

The same way parents don't get to decide what is taught in science class, they don't get to decide whether their kid should be taught sex ed. It's not about not exposing your child to "indecent material", it's about giving them tools with which they can protect themselves. Parents who decide not to talk to their son about sex ever face a much greater danger of having an unwanted grandchild or digging an early grave for their kid. The government should acknowledge the existence of such parents and provide a standardized sex education to everybody, in order not only to protect the kids from their own parents, but also the whole of the society from those irresponsible parents.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Hmm. This may be veering off topic, but what if the reason some parents do not want their kids to be taught sexual education is because they would like to talk to their children about it in their own terms?

Personally, I feel that way and I don't even have children yet. I've attended sex ed when I was younger, but I'd at least have a talk with my children on my own terms before letting them attend sex ed. I wouldn't want to feel rushed, so I'd rather have the option to have my children attend sex ed at a later date.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

Hmm. This may be veering off topic, but what if the reason some parents do not want their kids to be taught sexual education is because they would like to talk to their children about it in their own terms?

Personally, I feel that way and I don't even have children yet. I've attended sex ed when I was younger, but I'd at least have a talk with my children on my own terms before letting them attend sex ed. I wouldn't want to feel rushed, so I'd rather have the option to have my children attend sex ed at a later date.

While I do agree that Parents should have some control over at least middle school level sex ed classes (I agree with you that parents should have the option of instructing their children on reproduction), high school level classes should be mandatory across the country (If a parent cannot explain sex to a 14+ year old child, then that parent will never explain sex to them, so society must step in to properly fulfill the role the parent has vacated until this point). In fact, much the same as states have Civil Rights tests (were basic knowledge of the Constitiution must be established before you can advance from Freshman to Sophmore), states should have mandatory sexual education tests were the student must demonstrate knowledge (via a multiple choice test) concerning the facts of reproduction as well as the various safety and possibly even ethical issues involved with sex.

Getting back on topic, or at least more on topic, does anyone know what the Obama & McCain 9-11 event is, that is going on tomorrow. Is it a television special, or is it a debate?

[WanderingKnight]

While I do agree that Parents should have some control over at least middle school level sex ed classes (I agree with you that parents should have the option of instructing their children on reproduction), high school level classes should be mandatory across the country (If a parent cannot explain sex to a 14+ year old child, then that parent will never explain sex to them, so society must step in to properly fulfill the role the parent has vacated until this point).

Considering that girls can have kids at an age as early as 11, I'd suggest you to reconsider the point of no elementary school sex ed. Seriously.

Hmm. This may be veering off topic, but what if the reason some parents do not want their kids to be taught sexual education is because they would like to talk to their children about it in their own terms?

Protip: Parents cannot control the child's physical sexual maturity.

Some day, before the kid is physically mature enough to conceive a child, you will have to do it. It's inevitable. Stripping the only layer of protection children have against their irresponsible parents (schooling) is not a very good way of handling your own selfishness.

Either way, I was taught sex ed at 7 and I still haven't turned into a beastly sex machine. Though sometimes I'm not sure I don't regret that.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Considering that girls can have kids at an age as early as 11, I'd suggest you to reconsider the point of no elementary school sex ed. Seriously.

LOL, are you ordering me to reconsider . Joking aside, the statistics for girls under the age of 14 having sex is so low (and they get lower the younger you go) that there is no real reason to make elementary/middle school sex ed mandatory; it should be offered, but not mandatory. (Yes the younger girls can start having sex (and catching diseases and babies ) as early as 9-11, but the likelihood of that happening is so small, it is not a true pressing concern.) That being said, I only stipulated that Middle School classes need not be mandatory (i.e. a Parent can opt their child out), but once high school comes around, a Sex Ed class should be mandatory with a test that you must complete or you cannot advance to the next grade. That seems very fair to both the parent and the child, as well as society at large. As it is, issues as to sexual disease, etc. are generally taught as young as 9, thereabouts, so the crux of sex ed (the safety issue) can be covered far earlier than the actual "SEX" part.

edit: I should mention that I am speaking entirely from an American perspective. If we were talking about an African nation, then yes I would agree that Sex Ed from the youngest age possible should be enforced (along with various other mandatory education programs). But, since I am talking about America, what I mentioned here is about right for USA.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I'm sorry to go on again on the sex education thing, but how in blazes do you expect sex education not to be explicit?

Or does she believe they make teens have sex while the rest sit around literally circle-jerking?

PS: By the way, to leave my position on this even more clear, the terribly inefficient and corrupt Argentine government has recently passed a law that enforces sex education from the age of 5, and I think it's one of the best decisions they've taken in a very, very long time.

However, expecting sex ed at any age to be comprised of porn videos is a little extreme and frankly not at all realistic.

There's always a matter of "how explicit" and "explicit in what ways".

How explicit does sex education need to be? It's not like the classes are there to give lessons--although much of this debate was sparked by curriculums (both implemented and only proposed) which practically did. Certainly, some diagrams are helpful for the physiological explanations, and some purposeful pictures are best for explaining certain things. But what need is there for anything "explicit" aside from what can be described as medical explanation?

I really have to wonder what they're teaching five year olds as far as sex ed. A child lacks interest in sex for a reason, and overstepping those boundaries can have psychological consequences. Now, as some one who learned the proper names for things, the physiology behind reproduction and how to identify/report abuse before I could read, I think five year olds are perfectly capable of learning some things without being scarred for life (and would prefer they do), but even those need to be handled delicately with children--ideally at the right time and in a private, nurturing context. The problem, of course, is that some (most) parents aren't doing their jobs. But where do you start, and where do you draw the line? Most parents wouldn't object to a five year old being told what is and isn't appropriate touching, but there are some very prominent people in the US who think that it's also an appropriate time to start discussing masturbation, which is something that many parents would oppose vehemently. The divide causes people on both sides to harden and their stances in response to the other side, and so the debate goes on.

[cors8]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_125548.html

That's it. I'm going to hide in my bunker and wait for the end times.

[2H-Dragon]

Meh sex ed is overrated. What happened in the ol days where your cousins showed you porn. And you´d be like. O_O

btw the whole lipstick on pigs thing. It didn't come across as sexist to me. People fail to notice the speach he said before that sentence. >_>

[Anh_Minh]

And the sentence he said after: "You're laughing at Sarah Palin", or something to that effect. I wouldn't necessarily call it sexist, but at the very least, he should have known better.

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

And the sentence he said after: "You're laughing at Sarah Palin", or something to that effect. I wouldn't necessarily call it sexist, but at the very least, he should have known better.

There's a point where political correctness goes overboard. What's next? If Palin makes a duck joke, then "If it quacks like a duck..." becomes sexist too?

[solomon]

The big problem is that Palin IS a woman, and even though what barack said WAS taken out of context, it's been skewed to sound sexist.

Frankly, although I like Obama (he aint sexist as far as I know) it is his fault. He should have known that that line would have been ripe material.

[Anh_Minh]

I don't know. I'm just saying that claiming he wasn't talking about Palin at all is stretching the truth a bit, and that he really shouldn't have done that, not on those terms - it left him open to precisely the kind of attacks he's pelted with now.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by james0246

the statistics for girls under the age of 14 having sex is so low (and they get lower the younger you go) that there is no real reason to make elementary/middle school sex ed mandatory; it should be offered, but not mandatory.

As usual, I tend to look at statistics. Here are estimates on age at first sexual intercourse by sex and race from 2002. We don't seem to have much data on this after that year, nor do we have good estimates of sexual activity before age 15.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_024.pdf (See Text Table 3 for the details.)

About 6% of girls and 8% of boys report having had sex before age 15 in 2002. These rates nearly double over the next year though. The rates for black teens in these youngest age groups are three to four times the rates for whites, but by age 18 the percentage of black and white girls who have had sex are about equal. Higher percentages of black males report having had sex by age 18 than either black females or white males.

Among whites, girls start a bit more slowly than boys, but are then more likely to engage in intercourse during the 15-17 years. For blacks, the reverse is true; more boys report having sex in these years than girls.

The decline in reported sexual activity among teen-aged white males is truly striking. In 1988, 64% of white males reported having had sex by age 18; in 2002 that figure had fallen to 50%. For white females, the comparable figures are 54% in 1988 and 56% fourteen years later.

Personally, I wouldn't call rates of 6-8% by age 14 "low," but this is obviously a matter of perception. I'd guess a non-trivial number of these early sexual experiences were not consensual but the result of rape and incest (including incestuous rape).

[AnimeFangirl]

I don't think Obama has anything to apologize for. In fact, I think he should go more on the attack from now on. The Republicans have been taking dig after dig after dig at him since the convention and it's about time he fought back......

.....is what I would say if I were American and the elections had anything to do with me.

[WanderingKnight]

There's always a matter of "how explicit" and "explicit in what ways".

I should probably clear up that when I was taught sex ed at 7, it was taught from the perspective of it being "something adults did". And that's the impression I clearly remember it left on me.

I don't understand how kids would interpret it's something they can do if it's taught that way. I don't remember a single kid when I was 7 thinking about banging one of the girls in our class.

Of course, when you get to the age of 12 or so, hormones start acting up and things change--so the idea is to get ready for that stage beforehand.

[cors8]

Here's a little vid about Troopergate on ABC. I think it aired this morning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr5hpJKuh-s

The last couple of lines is amusing. It's politically motivated against Palin because 5/15 members are Democrats who support Obama!

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by 2H-Dragon

Meh sex ed is overrated. What happened in the ol days where your cousins showed you porn. And you´d be like. O_O

or find your dad's stash

as far as sex ed just show the guys a pic of p*nis with gonorrhea and tell them it will rot off if they catch std.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I don't know. I'm just saying that claiming he wasn't talking about Palin at all is stretching the truth a bit, and that he really shouldn't have done that, not on those terms - it left him open to precisely the kind of attacks he's pelted with now.

If there was any reference to Palin it was talking about her claims to be a reformer. That expression is quite old and well known, meaning basicly changing some minor things then presenting an old, failed idea as something new. McCain himself used the expression before. Obama was clearly referring to McCain saying he's for change now, dispite agreeing with Bushy on almost everything. It's another artifical issue similiar to that whole flag pin thing during the primaries.

[Anh_Minh]

I know. But he should have foreseen that people would associate the lipsticked pig with the lipsticked pitbull, and considering his subsequent remark, I think he did see it. Which would make the whole thing dumb, if nothing else. He should have used some other phrasing, one that didn't involve lipstick.

[solomon]

I think at this point it doesn't really matter cause if you add up all the gaffes and other things, he can't win.