Fifth Graders Quizzed on Proper Condom Use

[jmcrae]

Do you think Michaelangelo’s David causes mental trauma?

David is not being portrayed as having sex with someone.

Context matters, when presented in an educational context, non-erotic pictures of genitalia are completely different from someone giving kids a pornographic magazine.

Please explain to me how in a class on how to have sex, the nudity portrayed is going to be “non-erotic.”

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Do you think Michaelangelo’s David causes mental trauma? How about Titan’s Danae? Obviously not all nudity is the same, and suggesting that it is does not seem like a serious position.

Context matters, when presented in an educational context, non-erotic pictures of genitalia are completely different from someone giving kids a pornographic magazine.

Greetings TheTrueCentrist,

Nor is David putting on a Condom.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[JonNC]

If the school teaches something other than the facts, you have a right to complain. However, if you feel that facts undermine what you teach your kids, perhaps you ought to re-evaluate what you are teaching them.

So, you’re saying I should re-evaluate my teaching my children that sex outside of marriage is wrong, that unwed teenaged mothers (and fathers) are far more likely to live in poverty (at the expense of others), that the only safe sex is abstinence.
Clearly not, as it depends on whose “facts” we are talking about. As a teacher. I regularly see what is pawned off as “facts”. What’s curious is there are those who say that religion has no place in the schools, but they are quite happy to indoctrinate students with their moral beliefs. They say that politics has no place in schools, then pack so-called social studies, economics, government and even science classes with their progressive philosphies.
Sorry, my friend. I have no intention to re-evaluate, and submit to the secularists.

Jon

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Sex outside of marriage (especially among the very young) contributes to poverty and delinquency

[citation needed]

 

[followingtheway]

Fifth Graders shouldn’t even be having sex -____-

When I was in the fifth grade, I would lose homework not my virginity! :dts:

 

[Gift_from_God]

Sex outside of marriage (especially among the very young) contributes to poverty and delinquency

So if I go and have sex with my girlfriend tonight, that will contribute to poverty? I have some friends that are living together and I don’t see any financial instability or poor behaviour

 

[jmcrae]

So if I go and have sex with my girlfriend tonight, that will contribute to poverty?

If she loses her education or her job to follow you around, even though you have made no actual commitment to her (but she believes the commitment that your body has made to her), or if she ends up pregnant out of wedlock and you tell her that it’s her fault for not using birth control - yes. How could it not?

I have some friends that are living together and I don’t see any financial instability or poor behaviour.

What about their children? Does the not-really-their-father contribute to an education fund for them that will ensure they receive the highest possible education (and income) possible, or is this left entirely up to the mother? (Does he even plan to still be in their lives when they are old enough for University?)

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So, you’re saying I should re-evaluate my teaching my children that sex outside of marriage is wrong…

No, that is a moral position. I am saying that your moral teachings ought not to be contradicted by facts. I see no contradiction between the factual statement “if you have sex without a condom, you may get pregnant or an STD” and the moral statement “you should wait until marriage until you have sex.”

…that unwed teenaged mothers (and fathers) are far more likely to live in poverty (at the expense of others), that the only safe sex is abstinence.

Those are not moral type statements. If they represent reality, i.e. if you are right, then you would be correct to complain if the school taught anything that contradicted them.

Clearly not, as it depends on whose “facts” we are talking about. As a teacher. I regularly see what is pawned off as “facts”. What’s curious is there are those who say that religion has no place in the schools, but they are quite happy to indoctrinate students with their moral beliefs. They say that politics has no place in schools, then pack so-called social studies, economics, government and even science classes with their progressive philosphies.

I think the only problem is that you perceive their facts to contradict your opinions. While I’m sure a teacher’s political viewpoints may sometimes be presented to a class, if it occurs regularly the parents would likely (and would be well within their rights to) complain about it, but that is not what we are discussing.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

David is not being portrayed as having sex with someone.

Please explain to me how in a class on how to have sex, the nudity portrayed is going to be “non-erotic.”

Review your theology of the body:
christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=46

In his theology of the body, John Paul wrote that some works of art (such as the Sistine Chapel) portray the naked body in a manner that “allows one to concentrate in some way on the whole truth of man, on the dignity and beauty - even ‘suprasensual’ beauty - of his masculinity and femininity” (TOB 63:5). In contrast to this kind of authentic art, pornographic portrayals of the body raise objection, the Pope insists, not because they expose the human body per se. The human body in itself always retains its inalienable dignity. Rather, pornography raises objections because of the way in which the human body is portrayed (see TOB 63:5). Pornographers portray the body with the explicit intention of arousing lust - or, as theologians would say, “concupiscence” - in the viewer. This was not the intention of Michelangelo.

 

[Gift_from_God]

If she loses her education or her job to follow you around, even though you have made no actual commitment to her (but she believes the commitment that your body has made to her), or if she ends up pregnant out of wedlock and you tell her that it’s her fault for not using birth control - yes. How could it not?

You did not say pregnancy contributes to poverty, you said sex.

By the way, I know grad students who have infant children and are still students

 

[mtbender]

No, that is a moral position. I am saying that your moral teachings ought not to be contradicted by facts. I see no contradiction between the factual statement “if you have sex without a condom, you may get pregnant or an STD” and the moral statement “you should wait until marriage until you have sex.”

But wouldn’t the DARE programs throughout the country then be moral teachings as well – especially with the shift in social acceptance of “soft” drugs.

Would it not also be true to say that if you have sex with a condom you may in fact get pregnant or an STD? So shouldn’t the factual – and moral – teaching be that the only way to ensure you do not get pregnant is through abstinence?

I cannot see how one can say that schools should not teach some degree of morality… Should they not say that genocide is deplorable, cussing is bad, exc – but that would be aside from facts and based on morality? When schools spend 8 hours a day with the children these days, one cannot attest that there is some degree or responsibility. To separate the two would be very dangerous to society as a whole.

 

[JimG]

I wonder how long parents will tolerate the indoctrination of their children and the destruction of their innocence by public schools before either abandoning public schools en masse or demanding parental control through a free market.

 

[NonServiam]

Should children be given the facts about how to make bombs and blow up buildings?

I don’t think that schools should be teaching children those facts, no, for the obvious reason that blowing up buildings is, under most circumstances, highly illegal.

Now, while I don’t think schools should be teaching children those facts, I don’t have a problem with children knowing those facts in and of itself. The mere knowledge of those facts will not, in and of itself, make children want to make bombs or blow up buildings.

And, obviously, I have no problem with schools teaching children simple facts like what condoms are and what they are used for.

The people who do have a problem with this, I would argue, are foolishly attempting to shelter children from very basic information out of a misguided desire to preserve an imaginary thing that they call “innocence.”

 

[mtbender]

The people who do have a problem with this, I would argue, are foolishly attempting to shelter children from very basic information out of a misguided desire to preserve an imaginary thing that they call “innocence.”

Innocence only is abandoned when a secular society abandons it in the name of progress or liberalism. The people who do have a problem with this are aware of the flagrant down of society perpetuated by the laps of values and human dignity. Members of a society asserting that protecting a child is foolish just highlights the problem.

So I would ask, what simple facts is it okay with a school to teach a 10 year old? When answering that I would ask one keep in mind that they are just learning: basic geometry, reinforcing math with fractions, the use of analogies in critical thinking, recognizing basic context clues, maps and geography, exc… Most of these kids are just leaning where North and South America are on a globe. Now we are saying they have the basic reasoning and maturity to understand sex, its purpose, its repercussions, and to be able to discern the morality of it all - and to be able to do this with conflicting viewpoint between home and school?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Innocence only is abandoned when a secular society abandons it in the name of progress or liberalism. The people who do have a problem with this are aware of the flagrant down of society perpetuated by the laps of values and human dignity. Members of a society asserting that protecting a child is foolish just highlights the problem.

So I would ask, what simple facts is it okay with a school to teach a 10 year old? When answering that I would ask one keep in mind that they are just learning: basic geometry, reinforcing math with fractions, the use of analogies in critical thinking, recognizing basic context clues, maps and geography, exc… Most of these kids are just leaning where North and South America are on a globe. Now we are saying they have the basic reasoning and maturity to understand sex, its purpose, its repercussions, and to be able to discern the morality of it all - and to be able to do this with conflicting viewpoint between home and school?

The simple solution is to give up on the public school system and either put your children into a credible Catholic parochial school or homeschool them.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

But wouldn’t the DARE programs throughout the country then be moral teachings as well – especially with the shift in social acceptance of “soft” drugs.

Would it not also be true to say that if you have sex with a condom you may in fact get pregnant or an STD? So shouldn’t the factual – and moral – teaching be that the only way to ensure you do not get pregnant is through abstinence?

I cannot see how one can say that schools should not teach some degree of morality… Should they not say that genocide is deplorable, cussing is bad, exc – but that would be aside from facts and based on morality? When schools spend 8 hours a day with the children these days, one cannot attest that there is some degree or responsibility. To separate the two would be very dangerous to society as a whole.

Drugs are illegal, it is completely reasonable for the government to have a program which will dissuade kids from breaking the law.

 

[mtbender]

Drugs are illegal, it is completely reasonable for the government to have a program which will dissuade kids from breaking the law.

But they still do not just teach the facts, they teach morality as well as soon as they say they are bad.

What about teaching children not to lie in schools – moral teaching, and surely not illegal.

And isn’t the law based on morality?

Point being, you cannot separate moral teachings from schools - and when they do we see 10 year olds discussing sex.

 

[JonNC]

The simple solution is to give up on the public school system and either put your children into a credible Catholic parochial school or homeschool them.

Or an LCMS parochial school.

Jon

EDIT BTW, we did exactly what you said - put our child in a Catholic schhol -for a time.
And my other child now teaches in an LCMS school.

 

[Corki]

Should children be given the facts about how to make bombs and blow up buildings?

Only if they teach them the “correct” and “safe” way.

 

[MyNameIsChris]

I’m 18, so maybe I can add on a bit to what I said before, because a lot of people on here who are opposed to teaching 10 year olds about sex ed are generally content with them learning the material when they’re teens (i.e. 13, 14, or even 15 years old). It hasn’t been long since I’ve been that age, so maybe I can shed some light on this.

Being in High School/Middle School is NOT the same environment you are a part of when you are in Elementary School. It’s as different as night and day. If a kid has his/her first sex-ed class at the age of 14, then it really isn’t going to be that effective. Why? Because all around them, their peers are having sex, doing drugs, and to them, they seem perfectly fine. In fact, they seem better than fine, because a lot of teens even look up to and wish they were the one having all that sex and having all that fun. Does this apply to every kid in High School? No, absoultely not. But there is a large pool of kids who do think this way and it would be silly of us to ignore that.

Elementary School is different. Teaching a kid about sex when they are 10 isn’t going to backfire on you, because the other kids in the school aren’t doing it, and if they were, they’d most likely get called “yucky”, or some would even think that they’ve contracted “cooties”. Because of this, educating the children while they are still young, and NOT in High/Middle School is going to be far more effective, simply because people around them aren’t doing the exact opposite of what the teacher had taught them. When I got taught sex-ed at 10 years old, my teacher told us to wait until marriage, not because it was morally right (that’s up to the individual to decide), but because if a pregnancy does happen, we’ll be a lot more prepared to deal with it. Heck, at age 10, I didn’t ever want to get married. Kissing a girl seemed like taboo, let alone sleeping with her. And I feel that that knowledge has served me well, because even though my High School was a lot like most other peoples High Schools (there were some people I knew who were having sex), and I did get taught a bit of sex-ed as well, the whole concept wasn’t alien to me, and because of what I learned in fifth grade, I was already well aware of the consequences of unsafe, pre-maritial sex, and I knew which people I needed to steer-clear of.