Giving Our Children Information They Don’t Need While Not Telling Them What They Need To Know

Camille Paglia posted an article at Time Magazine yesterday entitled, “Put the Sex Back in Sex Ed.” It’s a rather odd concept, but she makes some very worthwhile points.

The article states:

Fertility is the missing chapter in sex education. Sobering facts about women’s declining fertility after their 20s are being withheld from ambitious young women, who are propelled along a career track devised for men.

The refusal by public schools’ sex-education programs to acknowledge gender differences is betraying both boys and girls. The genders should be separated for sex counseling. It is absurd to avoid the harsh reality that boys have less to lose from casual serial sex than do girls, who risk pregnancy and whose future fertility can be compromised by disease. Boys need lessons in basic ethics and moral reasoning about sex (for example, not taking advantage of intoxicated dates), while girls must learn to distinguish sexual compliance from popularity.

The first paragraph is something that was not an issue thirty years ago, the second paragraph involves issues that parents used to handle thirty years ago. Ms. Paglia is looking for a scientific approach to sex education in biology classes and a practical non-agenda driven approach to life issues in single-sex classes. This makes sense. Many parents are not telling their children the truth about the emotional and physical cost of abortion or the emotional differences between men and women.

Please follow the link and read the entire article. This is a very common-sense approach to an issue that has our society needs to deal with in a way that helps our young people grow up to be healthy and productive adults.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Are We Doing To Our Children ?

CNS News posted an article yesterday about a recent report containing recommendations for sex education in our public schools.

The article states:

By the time they leave elementary school, children should be able to “define sexual orientation,” and by the eighth grade be able to “define emergency contraception and its use,” according to a report containing controversial new recommendations for sex education in U.S. public schools.

This is not a direction our schools should be taking. I have no problem with sex education being taught in schools, but I think we need to take a very good look at what we are teaching.

More gems from the report:

Recommendations for students by the time they reach age seven include that they [u]se proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy” and “[p]rovide examples of how friends, family, media, society and culture influence ways in which boys and girls think they should act.”

Starting in the third grade, and upon completion of the fifth – when most children are 10 years old – students should be able to “[d]efine sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender” and “[i]dentify parents or other trusted adults of whom students can ask questions about sexual orientation.”

By completion of the eighth grade, the report says, students should be able to “[d]ifferentiate between gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation,” “[e]xplain the range of gender roles,” and “[d]efine emergency contraception and its use.”

I realize that all children do not live in perfect families where they will get good sex education with moral values, but this is a bit much. The two-parent heterosexual family is the foundation of our society. When we seek to undermine that, we undermine our society. We need to teach children respect, but we do not need to confuse them about their sexuality at an early age, which I believe this program does.

 Let’s let our children be children for at least a few years.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta