Sex Ed Raises Eyebrows

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
AliEnvy said:


Right, me too back then.

So my point is that since we know the barriers and reactions, why can't we address that head on as part of the learning?

Saying they aren't mature enough doesn't give kids the credit they deserve. We often underestimate them.
Click to expand...

We have trouble getting high school graduates understanding how to calculate 15% of a number.

How can we get a 5th grade boy to stop giggling when the word "breast" is mentioned?

The question you pose is a good one - I think it would have to start at earlier ages (and, if it was not obvious enough, in the home).
 
I think it's because there is limited time and limited resources.

we had one nurse for the entire district and she went to each school for a few hours a year for that purpose. That means each student got about 40 minutes of sex ed talk so just enough time to cover the basics.

If that's all the time you have then there isn't room for getting the giggles and nerves out.

I'm not saying it's a good system but there isn't enough time in the day for teachers to effectively address the things kids need to learn for state testing let alone sex ed.

Something is better than nothing in my opinion. If I hadn't had those 40 minutes I wouldn't have known what the hell was happening to me.
 
when i was in 5th grade we were seperated and talked to only about puberty. In sixth grade boys and girls were together and information about sex was included. You would think that sixth graders would not be mature enough to handle it, but you would be surprised. Things went pretty well actually, even though I was in the most rambunctious class, and many people asked questions. To solve the problem of being embarrassed by asking questions we had a question box were you could write your question anonymously and the teacher would read them after class...or you could always talk to the teacher after class.
 
nbcrusader said:
How can we get a 5th grade boy to stop giggling when the word "breast" is mentioned?
Click to expand...

I've never taught kids in school, only on the ski hill, so I don't really know, but my intuitive side says you don't stop them. Humour can be very useful and engaging in a given situation as much as it can be disruptive.

They're going to go into the class already riled up as it is so you might as well let them expel all the nervous energy right up front. It can even be incorporated into a game or something that gets them engaged in an open conversation where it's ok to laugh and be silly about it initially.

I often facilitate sexual harassment training in companies and I'll venture to guess there isn't much maturity difference on these sensitive topics between 10 year old boys and girls and 25-50 year old adults lol.
 
5th graders laugh at sex only because their parents deem it dirty and taboo at a young age. Then, all of a sudden when you thrust a whole bunch of "dirty concepts" at them, the laughter starts, because it's such a foreign concept to them. Of course, I think this is going to happen no matter how old you are when you're first allowed to start discussing genitals.

As for the outrage over boys learning about femaleness, we're still not that far removed from the generation where the start of menstruation was called the start of "the curse." Men didn't want to hear about such a sinful thing. After all, women bleed down there, because of the sin of Eve, right?

Really, this is more about co-ed sex ed. It's about generations of subconscious cultural baggage coming to a head.

Melon
 
Irvine511 said:
i remember when i was in 5th and 6th grade in 1988-1990 the teacher saying that they used to divide up the genders for sex ed -- the boys would go with the male teacher and talk about taking showers and using deodorant on a regular basis and some talk about nocturnal emissions, and the girls would go with the school nurse and get books and pamphlets, and then at recess the boys would chace after the girls and try to steal the books.
Click to expand...
Yup, and that's exactly the sex ed we got in Mississippi in 1981. With the boys' session underwitten by Mennen, and the girls' session underwritten by Playtex. And no overlap at all between the two "curricula." The boys didn't have to chase after the menstruation pamphlets, though--the girls gave them to them as a joke. And got leaflets about semen and nocturnal emissions in return. It wasn't just the boys who found the whole thing hysterically giggle-inducing--it's simply untrue that girls this age are any more naturally inclined to feel comfortable discussing the opposite sex's bodies, IMO. With or without said opposites being around.

I suppose I can see the point that boys/men don't really need to know the intricacies of how a tampon works, nor do girls/women really need to know the details of nocturnal emissions. On the other hand, the article posted suggests the *parents* were way more upset than the kids themselves were about all this. And it sounds like this program is considerably more comprehensive and well thought through than one 40-minute ask-the-nurse session.

I agree with AliEnvy that the trigger-giggle factor can most likely be overcome with time, but I'm also sympathetic to redkat's point that some kids might feel too embarrassed to ask questions they really want to ask in a mixed-sex group. Perhaps a compromise solution could be to have most of the sessions be coed, then offer one sex-segregated session at the end, for the benefit of those children who had questions they felt too intimated to ask in a coed environment.
 
Last edited:
melon said:
5th graders laugh at sex only because their parents deem it dirty and taboo at a young age. Then, all of a sudden when you thrust a whole bunch of "dirty concepts" at them, the laughter starts, because it's such a foreign concept to them. Of course, I think this is going to happen no matter how old you are when you're first allowed to start discussing genitals.
Click to expand...

:up:
 
I know that when my daughter attended these "sessions" in 5th & 6th grade, I, as a parent had to sign a release form authorizing her to attend. I don't know if it's a district, county, or state requirement to do so :shrug:

I remember her telling me about a song or jingle that kept coming up... it would be 'Just around the corner'

And I kind of like the idea of a question box - at least you could possibly have your question addressed without the possible embarassment a kid of 10-11 years old might go through in asking a question
 
Headache, what are you basing that inference on? I haven't personally read any other articles besides the one you posted. All it really says is that "a number of parents" expressed concern, only two of whom are identified by name/gender within the article. And in Ms. Molaro's case, it seems she may have been mortified as much by the gleefully invasive way in which her son chose to share his newfound knowledge with her, as by the substance of that knowledge.

Certainly nb and deep seem troubled enough by the program. My guess is *if* fathers really do generally care less about this issue, then that is likely more reflective of a tendency to be less preoccupied with their children's sexual development, period, than with any tendency to be more "open-minded" than women about how sex is taught in schools.

I suppose you *could* try to make an argument that, being able to get pregnant (and maybe, being more likely to experience being seen as a mere "body," rather than a person?), that women "naturally" feel more of a sense of stake in how attitudes towards the opposite sex are ultimately shaped by sex education classes. But I'm not sure such an argument would explain why women might (or might not) be predisposed towards particular types of sex ed programs.
 
Last edited:
melon said:
5th graders laugh at sex only because their parents deem it dirty and taboo at a young age. Then, all of a sudden when you thrust a whole bunch of "dirty concepts" at them, the laughter starts, because it's such a foreign concept to them. Of course, I think this is going to happen no matter how old you are when you're first allowed to start discussing genitals.
Click to expand...

That only reflects part of the picture, and I am not sure it is that accurate.

By 5th grade, students are well aware of the sexual nature of advertising, and the sexual content on television.

Also, kids with unsupervised access to the internet will come in with tales of pictures they have seen (and have heard these tales for a couple years by 5th grade).

Trying to teach responsiblity and respect in school is difficult, when the media's message is quite different.
 
nbcrusader said:
Trying to teach responsiblity and respect in school is difficult, when the media's message is quite different.
Click to expand...

Parents have the same problem at home. And it probably doesn't help that there are some very subtle ways parents and others are inadvertently reinforcing media messages even if they think they are teaching respect.

And as you said, kids are getting their (mis)information easily and early no matter what parents try to do to control it.
 
AliEnvy said:


Parents have the same problem at home. And it probably doesn't help that there are some very subtle ways parents and others are inadvertently reinforcing media messages even if they think they are teaching respect.

And as you said, they are getting their (mis)information easily and early no matter what parents try to do to control it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I see plenty of parents reinforcing media messages in an attempt to be their children's friends instead of their parents. Just add it to the burden teachers face every day.
 
AliEnvy said:


And as you said, kids are getting their (mis)information easily and early no matter what parents try to do to control it.
Click to expand...

misinformation often comes from parents.

the only thing my mom said about getting my period was to make sure no boys found out :crack:

and that only a promiscuous girl wore tampons:|
 
redkat said:


misinformation often comes from parents.

the only thing my mom said about getting my period was to make sure no boys found out :crack:

and that only a promiscuous girl wore tampons:|
Click to expand...

I don't remember my Mom ever having a talk with me. Certainly not my Dad :no: And tampons? Ha! I think we only had the giant size pads in the house :lmao: TMI :eyebrow:
 
nbcrusader said:
That only reflects part of the picture, and I am not sure it is that accurate.

By 5th grade, students are well aware of the sexual nature of advertising, and the sexual content on television.

Also, kids with unsupervised access to the internet will come in with tales of pictures they have seen (and have heard these tales for a couple years by 5th grade).

Trying to teach responsiblity and respect in school is difficult, when the media's message is quite different.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Are you of the school of thought that people are desensitized to violence, because of media too? Because, last I heard, when 9/11 occurred, the media-going public with its unsatiable appetite for sex and violence was horrified.

Most everyone, including children, knows the difference between television and reality. That's why we have curious kids who watch the surgeries on cable, but many of whom would find it disgusting to see it up close and in person.

And sex? It's different when television says it. They're not real people, and when was the last time you saw a penis or vagina on broadcast television at all? It's different when your parents and your teachers talk about it. If you're taught to think it is a taboo subject in the real world, in contrast to television, you're going to start chuckling when you're finally hearing such uptight (and presumably "sexless") authority figures talking about it.

Melon
 
I think America has a really warped view of sex and therefore imprints something 'taboo' and 'dirty' about it which in turn makes young teenagers want to do it more to 'rebel' against parents the man etc etc lol.

I think 5th graders are old enough to get their periods, they are old enough to learn about it. Periods are such a "teasy" thing because all boys know if they dont get taught is 'mum gets in a shit, dad says 'bloody pmt' and they bleed like buckets and buckets of blood ewwwwww' I think if they were told the REASON for a period, norishing the egg, breaking down the lining etc etc then it wouldnt be so 'ewww girls are dirty when they have it' mentality. I mean after all in 5/6 years they're gonna be praying their girlfriend gets one anyway! And going to buy tampons at the shops. My boyfriend knows exactly the ones i need and gets them wheneve ri ask. My period is one day not going to come because its norishing OUR BABY so why does it then need to NOT be taught to boys.

The same goes with masterbation for boys. We never knew why they did it and thought they wanked ever day 5 times a day etc, we didnt know they could get "hard" and not help it, that it was just a natural chemical reaction etc, when we used to see boys with a bulge in his pants, we would tease them mercifully thinking they were touching themselves etc, a little bit of knowledge both ways would cut down and not "hiding it away" from each other stop a bit of the misunderstand and mystery.

I also think that parents are so slack or so stupid in explaining sex to kids 'DONT DO IT!, wait till your married, its when the strok brings a baby, well the guy puts his hoo hoo into the ladies haa haa when they are in love' that most kids are all like wha??? anyway
i think the school should do it and actually tell the kids something right about it.

also, about the embaressing questions. We had a box you wrote questions in anon and they read them out and answered them so you got your question answered but wern't singled out. Its a much better system.
 
melon said:
And sex? It's different when television says it. They're not real people, and when was the last time you saw a penis or vagina on broadcast television at all? It's different when your parents and your teachers talk about it. If you're taught to think it is a taboo subject in the real world, in contrast to television, you're going to start chuckling when you're finally hearing such uptight (and presumably "sexless") authority figures talking about it.
Click to expand...

What kids end up seeing is the hypocricy of their parents and other authority figures.
 
melon said:


Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Are you of the school of thought that people are desensitized to violence, because of media too? Because, last I heard, when 9/11 occurred, the media-going public with its unsatiable appetite for sex and violence was horrified.

Most everyone, including children, knows the difference between television and reality. That's why we have curious kids who watch the surgeries on cable, but many of whom would find it disgusting to see it up close and in person.

And sex? It's different when television says it. They're not real people, and when was the last time you saw a penis or vagina on broadcast television at all? It's different when your parents and your teachers talk about it. If you're taught to think it is a taboo subject in the real world, in contrast to television, you're going to start chuckling when you're finally hearing such uptight (and presumably "sexless") authority figures talking about it.

Melon
Click to expand...
Nonsense? Perhaps in the world of academia.

In the real world, you can see the influence of media on children.

There is a huge difference between "telling the difference between television and reality" and a continual subtle influence that creates real world changes in children.

And to think that the only sexual messages conveyed to children must involve a penis or vagina is frankly ludicrous.
 
nbcrusader said:
Nonsense? Perhaps in the world of academia.

In the real world, you can see the influence of media on children.

There is a huge difference between "telling the difference between television and reality" and a continual subtle influence that creates real world changes in children.

And to think that the only sexual messages conveyed to children must involve a penis or vagina is frankly ludicrous.
Click to expand...

The fact that these children giggle over body parts while supposedly being exposed to oodles of pornography on a regular basis (if conservative hysteria was to be believed) is why your desensitization argument is faulty.

But if "younger and younger kids are having sex," then it's all the more reason they're ready to start dealing with sexual education at younger and younger ages. Children aren't dumb, even if their parents think as much.

Melon
 
I think kids need to learn about AIDS as early as possible-and about exactly how it is transmitted. What the Mayor says here sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

BY MICHAEL SAUL
NYDAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU

Amid heated criticism, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday defended the Education Department's decision to begin teaching children as young as 5 about AIDS and the virus that causes it.

"We're making sure that it's age-appropriate," Bloomberg said of the city's new HIV/AIDS curriculum. "For the kids in first, second, third grades, you teach 'em about germs and to wash your hands.

"And as you move up, you try to tailor the education to the maturity of the students - to not do that would be reprehensible and irresponsible."

According to the new curriculum, kids as young as 5 will learn that HIV is a "germ" and "not easy to get," and that it could lead to AIDS, from which it's hard to "get well."

Teachers won't mention that HIV is transmitted through sexual contact until students reach the fourth grade.

The new curriculum has sparked outrage from some parents and conservative leaders, who believe kindergartners are too young to be taught about HIV/AIDS.

"This is entirely too young, and the city of New York should really hang their heads in shame," said Michael Long, chairman of the state Conservative Party. "This is big government at its worst - this is government telling mothers and fathers that they know better than parents do."

Catholic League President Bill Donohue urged Catholic parents to pull their kids from the classes, and called the new curriculum a "coordinated effort on the part of city officials to sexually engineer our children."

But Bloomberg said the new curriculum will go on. "There's nothing more important than making sure that our students not only get a good education, but live to use it," he said. :up:
 
For the kids in first, second, third grades, you teach 'em about germs and to wash your hands.
Click to expand...

and

kids as young as 5 will learn that HIV is a "germ"
Click to expand...

You can prevent AIDS by washing your hands? I can understand teaching about germs, or teaching about AIDS when children may engage in risky behavior , but it doesn't appear that a curriculum geared towards 5-year olds is really for the benefit of the 5-year olds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Hello!
Replies
3
Views
821
zoo skis
Z
A
Artane Girl signing in!
Replies
1
Views
476
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
U
Hello, From Dallas, Texas
Replies
3
Views
539
TheFlyZooTV
T
N
Hello!
Replies
2
Views
822
Hewson
Hewson
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
875
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom