What is Digg?199 Comments
- yttrstein, on 11/06/2009, -13/+143If their parents weren't idiots in the first place, this would not be necessary. Screw their beliefs.
- Junkyarddawg, on 11/06/2009, -4/+921) 15 years is too late. Seriously, wake up UK, your country has changed.
2) There is a provision that parents can have their kids opted out, so they don't have to learn about horrible dangerous things like contraceptives. - fordfox, on 11/06/2009, -0/+68I remember hearing of classmates in 7th and 8th grade who had already had sex.
I would much rather have my child's "innocence" ruined than their whole life ruined by HIV or pregnancy at that early age due to lack of proper sex education.
Beyond that, it's just another religious "debate", with one side providing clear and cogent arguments, and the other side screaming nonsensical rhetoric.
As for the parents who say they should be the ones to teach their children.. well you have roughly 5 years between 10 and 15 to teach them before the schools will do it for you! - svendm, on 11/06/2009, -1/+64http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_bir_rat- ...
Teen birth rates:
USA: 64 (Age of consent: 16-18)
UK: 33 (Age of consent: 16)
Sweden: 13 (Age of consent: 15)
(The pregnancy rates follow the same pattern, btw. )
Where Sweden has the mandatory sex-ed starting at age 13 and hands out free condoms to students of age. And the religiosity is a small fraction compared to the US/UK. (so it ain't due to abstinence, that's for sure)
Your explanation? - ohreilly, on 11/06/2009, -1/+5915?
Pfft, I remember having them in primary school (with my parents being able to opt-out, of course). I was probably 11 at the time. - Suricou, on 11/06/2009, -2/+54"Right for children to be educated in accordance with their parents’ beliefs?" Where did this come from?
You can argue that parents should have a right to educate their children, and get no contriversy there - but why is this an exclusive right? How exactly does this translate into giving parents the right to shield their children from learning things said parents disapprove of?
I see much potential for abuse in such a 'right.' Political or religious extremists, for example, could use this to defend crazy schooling. "Yes, we taught our child that the jews are filthy pigs who seek to rule the world and that the holocaust was a scam - but if you tell him otherwise, you're violating our parential rights!" - jggr, on 11/06/2009, -3/+51I'll never understand America's belief that ignorance and mis-information can be in anyway beneficial. Teach facts, let the people decide for themselves.
- terminalterror, on 11/06/2009, -1/+49Just as they are too young to become pregnant or get an STD?
- Yodan1, on 11/06/2009, -3/+48Mr. Balls.
- Ulfalizer, on 11/06/2009, -1/+45Are you kidding me? If anything, it should be earlier, as most teens will already be a few years into puberty by the time they're 15. I've never understod this notion that sex in and of itself could be something harmful for children/adolescents to learn about either.
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/06/2009, -5/+44There's plenty of data that areas with a lack of proper sex education leads to higher teen pregnancy rates. Just look at what happen when abstinance-only education was pushed in the US.
- rignopolis, on 11/06/2009, -3/+39If parents did their job, this wouldn't be necessary. The problem is, many parents these days are absent - in terms of teaching their kids values. By default, the schools are left with no option but to try and fill in the gap - which is problematic for those parents who are engaged with their kids.
- IKORKYI, on 11/06/2009, -1/+35Sex education /= sex lesson
***** the submitter - hauntedchippy, on 11/06/2009, -1/+33The problem is with parents assuming that they own their children. Which is *****, human beings are not property, we had a civil war over just that.
Parents are stewards, or guardians, of their offspring until said offspring are legally adults and can make decisions for themselves. Parents who fail their children by indoctrinating them with ***** are child abusers and should be treated as such. - WhiskeyLemur, on 11/06/2009, -2/+27If parents are involved in their kids' lives, I sure as hell hope they have had "the talk" with them by the time the kid is 15 - and at that point, what does it hurt to have the school provide additional information? I guarantee that the vast majority of the parents who are objecting to it are doing so on religious grounds. It has nothing to do with parental involvement as such.
- mlvassallo, on 11/06/2009, -0/+24Sex education is not a "Sex Lesson".
- sladek, on 11/06/2009, -0/+24English fail
- mrsteveman1, on 11/06/2009, -0/+23Well here's an absurd but more relevant example.
Parent teaches kid that the stove isn't actually hot and won't burn you, but refuses to let kid near stove until they turn 18 because that's what they "believe in".
What do you suppose will happen the first time mommy and daddy aren't looking? - Paranor01, on 11/06/2009, -0/+23Sweden actually educates with factual truth. Not politically motivated truth.
Dumber the kids (by dumber, I mean uneducated), higher the pregnancy. - papashawn, on 11/06/2009, -1/+22how is babby formed, old chap?
- RodgerE1, on 11/06/2009, -1/+20Dugg for Ed Balls
- o76923, on 11/06/2009, -1/+18The mean age of first sex in the US is 16 with 95% falling within 2 years on either side. I can't imagine the UK is too different.
- BrewBeau, on 11/06/2009, -1/+18Bad reasoning. This is why juries aren't filled with people who knew the victims. Of course, when you have a child it's natural to not want them to grow up because you want them to be your little baby forever. But, at some point, logic should kick in and you should concede that there are things that your kid(and every kid) should know because it benefits society as a whole.
- Suricou, on 11/06/2009, -1/+17Let them both provide. It's called redundency. Don't depend on either.
- nullmind, on 11/06/2009, -2/+18Remember, sex is immoral and unnatural.
Nice slant on the title. "Sex Lessons" != "Sexual Education". Slant for the bury. - Fhwqhgads, on 11/06/2009, -1/+16@Suricou:
Exactly. There should be no "right" to brainwash children into believing ***** like sex is bad, gay people are bad, Jews are evil, believe the bible or burn and be tortured forever in hell, etc. - WhiskeyLemur, on 11/06/2009, -1/+151. Don't be absurd - when people say "sex education," NO ONE is talking about taking your boy to the local brothel.
2. 15-yr-olds know just enough to get them in trouble. Even some adults have some retardedly medieval notions about contraceptives - what does a 15-yr-old know about what STDs do to your body, the failure rate of condoms, or the fact that drinking grapefruit juice could lower the effectiveness of the birth control pill? - Junkyarddawg, on 11/06/2009, -1/+15It's already been leaked that an opt-out will be added. Don't worry, the religious kids will be just as clueless as to how babby is formed as they are now. Well, actually what their religions want to keep them from knowing is how to make sure a babby ISN'T formed, but same difference.
That's not the real story. The real story is the enormous divide between catholic and muslim dogma and the actual world the kids live in - and the worrying power of the religious lobby. - bsmang, on 11/06/2009, -0/+13Waiting till they're 15 is certainly a little too long, but at least it's compulsory.
- pstroll, on 11/06/2009, -6/+18The sex ed teacher at my high school took one look at my face and gave me an 'F'
- chrysrobyn, on 11/06/2009, -0/+12I had sex ed in primary school, but it was more about biology than anything else. I didn't learn what a condom was, or that the word "abstinence" existed. It was about what a man and a woman looked like if you cut them in half with a chainsaw. Then, if you took a single sperm cell and a single egg under a microscope.
Sex ed really shouldn't go by that name until there's an artificial penis and a condom. At that point, parents of boys can "opt-out" of learning what girls look like. - theonlywizdum, on 11/06/2009, -0/+10cwmather, Sheltering your kids from anyone who has different views than you is not helping them. They should be allowed to see both sides so they can decide for themselves. Just because a teacher holds certain views, does not mean that your child will be forced to believe the same way. During my years in the public school system I had Atheist teachers, Christian teachers, and even one Hindu teacher.
- Angostura, on 11/06/2009, -0/+9cwmather. So, as a matter of interest at what age did you educate your kids about sex and relationships ... and what did you tell them?
- mrsteveman1, on 11/06/2009, -1/+101: This is not in America
2: Religion is not a get out of jail free card - Suricou, on 11/06/2009, -2/+11Except this is British, not American.
I don't think it'd count either way though - it isn't punishing religion directly. It's punishing truancy, and there is no problem with that. True, some of this truancy is motivated by the parents' religion - but if you make an exception, you're effectively saying that the parents are above the law. - hauntedchippy, on 11/06/2009, -1/+10Damn those bloody American freedoms applying in the United Kingdom!
- XBebop, on 11/06/2009, -1/+9Who would like to come up and demonstrate this with me?
- localzuk, on 11/06/2009, -1/+9It doesn't matter what some parents think - all those things are part of life in the UK. The children will come across those things in their day to day lives, so should be educated about them.
Not educating them leads to ignorance, bigotry and stupidity. - the8thbit, on 11/06/2009, -0/+8They need to do way instain chimbley sweep>
- Zippo, on 11/06/2009, -0/+8Christ, I went to a Roman Catholic school growing up, and sex-ed started at Grade 2. I was called "Health Class". We learned about the human body and sex organs at the age of 7 and by the time grade 5 came around, we were taught about intercourse. Health class continued on till grade 9.
- waydee, on 11/06/2009, -0/+7Sex education was done at 12-13 for me when I was at school in Scotland, the full ugly health teacher doing the condom on a dildo routine.
I don't remember it being something parents could opt out of, maybe under special request. - atroxodisse, on 11/06/2009, -0/+7The information won't hurt them even if you object to the subject matter. There are lots of things your kids need to learn in order to graduate from high school. Are we going to start letting them opt out of their classes on religious grounds? No. You don't get to opt out of History class because your parents are Holocaust deniers either. If your kid believes in their convictions then they will stick to them. If they don't, well you'll be glad when your kid uses a condom.
- o76923, on 11/06/2009, -1/+8They absolutely have the right to be told by parents and religious leaders not to have sex until marriage and only for procreation. Nobody is saying they shouldn't receive whatever religious nuttery they want. What we are saying is that you have to give children the facts/science side of the equation in school.
- WhiskeyLemur, on 11/06/2009, -2/+9There are certain things which adversely affect the well-being of your child.
To take an extreme case - there was a story about parents whose infant died from starvation (maybe it was malnutrition, which isn't exactly the same thing) because they were new-age morons and fed him soy milk, which doesn't contain all the things a growing human needs. They were, if memory serves, indicted and found guilty of criminal negligence.
The same, imo, should apply to parents who refuse to treat their children for basic, curable ailments due to "religious beliefs." And for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children without pressing, REAL medical reasons - allergies, for instance, as opposed to some paranoid delusion that their kid will "acquire" autism.
The same should go for parents who expose their children to unnecessary risk of STDs and pregnancy because they are naive (read: stupid) enough to believe that "my little angel would NEVER do something like that!!!" when nature, not to mention copious amounts of evidence, show otherwise.
There's a time and place for religion - but goddamn it, the welfare of your child should take a higher priority!! And if the two are in conflict, maybe you need to take a good, hard second look at your religion's doctrines. - Kirion, on 11/06/2009, -0/+7I think i had about 1 month sex education course in 8 class. About the same time we learned in school about drugs (only truth, no fear mongering). I was about 13 years old. And looking back now, when i'm 26, i'm grateful. Like half of my childhood friends became heavy drug users or sitting in jail. I'm pretty sure i would have at least hepatitis if not something much worse.
Really, anyone who oppose such lessons in school are either hypocrite or prude. Or simply stupid. - SystemicThought, on 11/06/2009, -0/+7I have an idea. Make them go to sex ed. The parents can tell them "The homosexuals and people who use condoms and have sex before marriage that you're hearing about are all going to hell." I don't see how learning that contraceptives exist and that penises go in vaginas and that some penises go in male anuses will hamper their parents ability to teach them their religious beliefs.
On another note, at my private catholic school, we had sex ed, in which at one point I think the teacher concluded with "If you ever have sex before marriage, use a condom. But sex before marriage is wrong, and you shouldn't have sex before marriage. So you'll never need to use a condom because you'll never have sex before marriage. But if you do, use a condom." - Skurt, on 11/06/2009, -3/+10Did he use his dick to write it on your face?
- toxicityj, on 11/06/2009, -0/+7I hate that teens are off screwing around that young. To me sex is something you do with someone you love and at age 15 you're too stupid to know what that is. BUT! I would rather them know how to do it safely than ignore it and hope they don't get pregnant/STD/etc.
- GREEDOnvrFIRED, on 11/06/2009, -0/+6Come on, what the hell kind of headline is that "Mandatory sex lessons?" Seriously? If I write an article on self-defense do I call it Fighting Lessons? No I call it Self-Defense class. As in classes which teach that it is probably best you don't fight, But that if you must fight there are ways to help insure your safety.
I refuse to read an article with such an aggressively skewed title. Does the rest of it read that way? - Deathalicious, on 11/06/2009, -1/+7The only sex education you'll ever need:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/266937
"The Puberty Pals: What the heck is happening to my genitals?"
NSFW, obviously. -
Show 51 - 100 of 203 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is