You’re teaching our kids WHAT?

Schools all over Canada and America are shifting from teaching kids how to have safe-sex to how to have good sex.

What do you think of all this?

www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/08/you%E2%80%99re-teaching-our-kids-what/

I blogged a bit about it on my blog, studentmusings.wordpress.com

I think this about sums up my reaction:

:eek::eek::eek:

In an odd way, I can kind of see what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to come at sex education from a positive perspective rather than a negative perspective. I can respect that desire. However, their “positive” approach is really only surface deep (not to mention totally inappropriate!).

The fact is, you cannot possibly (properly) teach about sex without teaching it in relation to marriage. That is why the family is the ideal environment for this type of education. That sex has been divorced from marriage in our secular culture is one of the reasons for all the problems we have in this area.

The Church has given us some excellent guidelines on this topic: The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family

The state should absolutely not be teaching sex education. This is a job exclusively for the parents.

As for the story… :eek:

I agree with this. But to state such a thing in public is the current equivalent of odious heresy!

There’s something in the Bible about not scandalising children. Christ was quite vehement about it.

What the heck can a child comprehend about sex, anyway? It’ll just frighten, shock or disgust them. And it plants a seed that can later ripen to rotteness.

It’s a bunch of dirty-minded old hippies unable to see the link between propaganda about sex and illegitimate children, VD, serial promiscuity and worse, the broken and hardened hearts such things produce.

Got a lot of single mothers on welfare?

What to do?

Hmmm …

[thinks] …

[thinks] …

I know! Tell kids fornication is OK!

Good sex? As in following the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church?

Something sinful is not good. From what I read of the article, this program teaches about the pleasure of sex. God designed pleasure into sex; HOWEVER, when we focus exclusively on the pleasurable aspects of sex and ignore the rest of God’s plans for human sexuality, such misuse of sex leads to pain.

I admit I am not totally against the idea of teaching teens about pleasurable sex. Though probably in not too much detail. I mean showing them the more senstive parts is one thing…teaching them about different toys and what not is another. And of course I think teaching them about stds and safe sex should still be a very important part of the lesson. And yeah it would be nice if we could just take sex education all together out of the schools. But that would be a disaster, why? because many parents just wonlt teach their kids about sex. But trust me whether or not you mention anything about sex to your kids…they are learning about it somewhere.

Gardens,

I agree with you whole-heartedly! My original phrase, that you quoted, was facetious. I should have put “good sex” in quotation marks Sorry for the misunderstanding caused by my tone :blush:

No problem. I didn’t realize you were being facetious in the use of the word “good”, but I clearly understood from your post that you opposed this new form of sex ed. The culture at large frequently misunderstands what “good sex” is. I think that’s one reason why people in our culture are obsessed about sex–because they don’t understand it. They know there’s something good–even great–about sex, but they miss how great it is when sex becomes a form of casual recreation.

The article indicates that this program started because some teachers got tired of discussing all the negative consequences of sex. In large part of that has to do with their own attitudes and typical sex-ed curriculum. Schools typically teach how to avoid pregnancy, viewing pregnancy as a negative consequence of sex rather than a natural outcome. They don’t explain about the beauty of marital sex and lifelong monogamy. Instead, they talk about STD’s and tell teens to avoid STD by having sex, (promoting sex with a condom promotes having sex.) The general presumption is that people* will* have sex outside of marriage, and most people live down to their expectations. Some teachers sensed correctly that the usual sex-ed taught in schools was focused on the negatives, but those poor ignorant teachers may not know anything about the beauty of sex beyond pleasure.

It’s really quite sad.

I don’t really think taking sex ed out of the schools would be a bad idea at all. What message are school sex ed programs giving kids that counteracts all the obscene things they’re picking up from popular culture? Movies, tv and music videos shove sex down kids throats 24/7 and then the sex ed teacher tells them everything is acceptable as long as they wear a condom. It’s like the two feed off each other. The truth is, sex really isn’t that complicated. People have figured it out on their own for thousands of years. I’m a little bit envious of my grandparent’s generation, for whom sex was usually reserved until after marriage. They didn’t have the freedom to shag anything that moved, but they got to learn about sex together, as their relationship evolved. People of that generation probably didn’t expect their partners to be sexual experts the first time, but they learned together.

“But they learned together.” Beautiful. That’s what makes it so wonderful. Which makes the married couple grow more in that area in their marriage.

I think that’s mad, and I’m agnostic, as well as pretty sinful according to Catholic theology…:wink:

I wouldnt have WANTED sex ed classes to have covered this stuff - it teaches the important stuff already - the practicalities. It’s like a safety valve at the moment, or it was in my school - like, we’re gonna teach you this so you know what goes where, and if you DO have sex soon (which you shouldn’t) you wont end up with an STD or having an unwanted child. (I know Catholic teaching is against artificial birth control, but my school was secular and very few pupils were strongly religious, so I think it did the job as sex ed for the pupils it was aimed at)

Anyway, the pleasure-of-sex stuff should be kept in sex shops and sex books and whatever, so it can be explored on a person by person basis, and not as education - kids do not NEED to know it in the same way they need to know biological facts. Besides which, people are different. You cant teach good sex because it is different for everyone, and usually involves emotions as well.

I feel sex ed needs to be taken out of school since it can’t be taught effectively with reverence in proclaiming the message of abstinance. I took it when I was in the 7th grade. During one class I felt so sick to my stomach I almost ran out of the room. My teacher was a little too free in explaining things and showing things. I was not trying to know this stuff. It was so hard having to sit there and hear this stuff, that I felt was not going to have to deal with any time soon. Children are still so sensitive at that age. I think parents need to get a backbone and say if I want my children to know the correct information then I need to do it. Not leave it up to the schools. I don’t plan to sign my children up for sex ed, no matter what anyone’s opinions are. They are my children, they will develop respect towards it and reverence. Not slandering it by over doing it with the pleasure topic and STD’s and what not. Inform, but not pervert.

God Bless

emma411;5690654]I feel sex ed needs to be taken out of school since …

I believe it’s the child that should be taken out of the school. This is only a small sample of the evil perpetrated on kids in public schools.

The problem is, unless the school is Catholic, some children/teens do need to know this stuff - they arent necessarily religious so have no qualms about sex before marriage or with multiple partners, and it is better for them to be taught about contraception than to get STDs or to get pregnant when theyre young. Surely you dont wish STDs on these people?

You might WANT everyone to follow the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception and fornication etc but its unrealistic - you cannot force people to have the same religion or morals as you. And for the people that don’t, this information in sex ed is really valuable.

And yet the world is assuming that kids can’t be taught to control themselves. STDs are 100% preventable. No sex. Simple. No classes in school required.

Peace,
Ed

So it’s wrong for Catholics to push their morals on chldren in public schools, but it’s okay for atheists to push their lack of morals?

Because there’s scientific proof that free sex is no big deal? Wrong. As you say, it leads to STDs, unwed mothers, broken families, poverty. And wasn’t there just a book out which documents the emotional bonds and breakages which occur over and over because sex causes bonding for women.

Now if you had control of the schools, I bet even as an atheist, you would teach values to the kids to go along with the sex ed. But what we’ve got is a huge vacuum teaching vulnerable children the very lowest form of morality.

And we are going to be old in this country one day when those kids have control of our physical destiny. :eek:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.