Teaching Sex Ed

[newbetx]

Not sure what you will NOT be able to teach. Being told what to teach is a delicate issue in our secular society. One has to teach it or loose their job. HOW one teaches it may still be an option. My oldest told me about his experience and it’s worked so far. He told me with all the other information in class that he received, his teacher told him that that abstinence avoids all the issues 100%. As well, we know, it does.

One can easily get additional information that is verifiable to augment any secular sex ed course. Pictures of fetus stages (non-abortive), statistics, symptoms and issues of STDs, failure rates of various BC methods, side effects, all to show “safe sex” is a lie. Confusion of sex and love and posession, social issues, etc. The kids are smart, they’ll pick up on the “counter-culture” if you let them.

A case for chastity can be made in a non-religious way. There are various sources of these materials.

 

[manualman]

I don’t think that good catholic education must ignore sex entirely other than a trite “keep your clothes on until you are married OR ELSE” message.

Education at appropriate times is GOOD for us. The key is to avoid the cultural traps that are so often built into the secular approach to sex education. The anatomy can be taught with hand drawn diagrams in textbooks. Ideally, IMO, the boys and girls should be separated during instruction. I don’t see why state school sex ed can’t include factual information that demonstrates the superiority of abstinance until marriage. STD education can be part of this, the problems of teen pregnancy can be part of this, even condoms can be discussed, but COMPLETELY, not the phony “safe sex” story typically fed to teens. The idea that condoms = “safe sex” is a horribly distorted version of the truth. The reality is that condoms make the horribly risky behavior of promiscuity SOMEWHAT less risky. The “real life usage” failure rate of condoms is more than 1 in 10 (a few due to condom failure, most due to accidental misusage). Would anybody here fly on an airline that had a 90% safe flight record? But we tell teens that this is SAFE!?! It’s OK to educate them in the fact that a condom reduces risk. But it should be abundantly clear to them that promiscuity is still a potentially fatally risky behavior. That isn’t teaching morality, just sound public health policy.

 

[edwest2]

To manualman -

Very good. Teaching young people about “safe” sex brings to mind the following idea: I am being threatened by someone or something, but now, I am safe. Safe means you are no longer at risk, but that’s not true. So “safe sex” is not 100% safe. I realize calling it “How to have sex and reduce your risk of getting pregnant or getting an STD.” does not sound as good but it’s more accurate.

If your starting premise is: The majority of you are going to have sex before marriage, it sets up in the mind of the listener, three possible thoughts:

1. No I’m not.
2. How do you know what I’m going to do or not do?
3. Yeah, I want to do it.

The basic false starting premise is: No One Can Control Themselves. Or, self control regarding sex does not exist.

Young people need guidance, not training for something that might happen. We are not talking about people going into the woods and carrying a snake bite kit just in case. We are talking about not just knowledge but a psychological orientation. Kids are inexperienced about life, especially when they’ve only been around for 15 or 16 years.

Without establishing a standard, I think it just encourages experimentation. So teachers should set standards and goals. And abstinance is 100% guaranteed as far as avoiding unwanted pregnancy and STDs.

Here is some information regarding the Catholic approach:

wf-f.org/Whitehead-SexEdintro.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[mcteague]

Ed,

The question was not how should we teach sex. It was how can a Catholic reconcile the way sex is taught in public schools with their religious and moral values. Although a majority of Carholics may oppose abortion, it is still the law of the land. Although many Catholics might favor an abstinence only approach to addressing the problems of teen pregnancy and STDs that is not the approach accepted as correct by most public schools.

The arguments you make are not invalid. But they do not address the question. In a public school when teaching sex education you can not avoid discussing those topics from the perspective of the approved ciriculum.

We, those of us in America, live in a pluralistic hetrogenious society. Just as many Catholics would not want schools advocating abortion as a method of birth control so also might some groups object to the limitations of the abstainence only approach.

The best and only way to address the problem is to teach all the facts and also include some teaching regarding the moral and ethical issues. That can be tricky. Which is why I recommend briefly touching on those issues and then encouraging the students to speak to their parents or other adults they trust for guidance.
It had nothing to do with believing people can not control themselves.

 

[edwest2]

Ed,

The question was not how should we teach sex. It was how can a Catholic reconcile the way sex is taught in public schools with their religious and moral values. Although a majority of Carholics may oppose abortion, it is still the law of the land. Although many Catholics might favor an abstinence only approach to addressing the problems of teen pregnancy and STDs that is not the approach accepted as correct by most public schools.

The arguments you make are not invalid. But they do not address the question. In a public school when teaching sex education you can not avoid discussing those topics from the perspective of the approved ciriculum.

We, those of us in America, live in a pluralistic hetrogenious society. Just as many Catholics would not want schools advocating abortion as a method of birth control so also might some groups object to the limitations of the abstainence only approach.

The best and only way to address the problem is to teach all the facts and also include some teaching regarding the moral and ethical issues. That can be tricky. Which is why I recommend briefly touching on those issues and then encouraging the students to speak to their parents or other adults they trust for guidance.
It had nothing to do with believing people can not control themselves.

As I passed through the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s and now 00s, I heard only two arguments for starting sex education in schools:

1. Kids’ parents were incompetent, too squeamish or just too afraid of talking about sex to their kids. Parents, who must have had some useful knowledge of sex in order to bring kids into the world, were regarded as not sufficiently competent.
2. They’re going to do it anyway. According to who?

I ask you to think about one thing: Why is the default position “everybody else” as opposed to an answer that has stood the test of time? Can you tell, just by looking at them, which students are religious and which received no religious education? Can you tell if 51% of your class is religious and the rest are not?

Is there a “right” answer for religious people and a different “right” answer for nonreligious people?

Abstinence carries a 100% guarantee of no unwanted pregancies or STDs, but across the internet, I see it laughed at and downgraded based on the “They’re gonna do it anyway” argument, which is not a good argument at all from a purely practical perspective. It appears to me that those who get most emotional about abstinence are actually saying - Don’t you dare take casual sex out of mainstream American society.

And what’s the value of casual sex? It doesn’t have any value. It is not authentically human.

Peace,
Ed

 

[manualman]

My approach above is tailored specifically to a public school teacher who is mandated to include specific topics. Instead of tilting at the windmill, simply present the required information in a factual way that is not in conflict with catholic teaching.

That’s the great thing about catholicism: there is NEVER a genuine conflict between the facts and the faith. When there appears to be, it always ends up being a mistake in comprehension of the “facts” or a misunderstanding of the implications of the faith.

With sex, health and education, the facts are ALL on our side. They just have to be presented without spin.

 

[mcteague]

With sex, health and education, the facts are ALL on our side. They just have to be presented without spin.

Arguing that there is no other side is at least ungracious. Hubris is not an particularly affective strategy. It is perceived as demeaning and insulting. This may be inevitable when the when the Catholic view is believed by it’s proponents as coming directly from God. But we live on Earth not in heaven. To persuade others you might consider modifying the condescending tone, and accept that you don’t have all the answers just because you believe in a particular religion.

 

[manualman]

Arguing that there is no other side is at least ungracious. Hubris is not an particularly affective strategy. It is perceived as demeaning and insulting. This may be inevitable when the when the Catholic view is believed by it’s proponents as coming directly from God. But we live on Earth not in heaven. To persuade others you might consider modifying the condescending tone, and accept that you don’t have all the answers just because you believe in a particular religion.

Please recognize the distinction that neither I nor any priest, bishop or pope have “all the answers” versus the catholic teaching that revelation can never be in conflict with science. This is not hubris, it is a prerequisite for a religious system in which the god in question is THE only God, and not merely a highly powerful being, but in fact the source and giver of all creation and the physical universe itself.

This thread is a question from a catholic TO catholics about how to deal with a situation (teaching) that at first glance might appear to create a religious conflict. My post is directly mainly to that OP to reassure him/her (can’t remember!) that there is, in fact, no conflict. Persuading YOU (or any other doubter of the catholic faith) was not my goal here. But if you’d like me to have at that, I’d be glad to oblige in another thread or in PM.

There is absolutely NOTHING factual (and I’ve studied the issue) in public sex ed curricula that undermines catholic teaching on human sexuality. All the undermining is contained within the spin, attitude and assumptions that usually surround the presentation of these facts. I can’t think of any curriculum subject that would be required for presentation that cannot be presented in accordance with catholic teaching.

Gotta teach about condoms? Fine. But include factual statistics about real life failure rates and do your best to ensure that kids don’t think that a condom makes promiscuity “safe.” At best it significantly reduces the risk of pregnancy and STD transmission. It does NOTHING to eliminate the OTHER well known side effects of teen promiscuity - increased rates of depression, increased rates of abuse/abusive relationships, etc. At best, wearing a condom is like buckling your seatbelt before driving Daddy’s Porsche at 110mph on an urban expressway.

Similarly, if it is required to present information about abortion, present ALL the information about abortion. Don’t present it like so many do as a way to “undo” a pregnancy. You can’t undo what is done. Emphasize the need to get counseling from someone without a profit motive before-hand. Make sure they comprehend the FACTS about fetal development; show them what a baby looks like at 10 weeks, the average age that abortion occurs (fingers and toes, beating heart, brainwave activity, unique DNA from the parents)

 

[mcteague]

Please recognize the distinction that neither I nor any priest, bishop or pope have “all the answers” versus the catholic teaching that revelation can never be in conflict with science. This is not hubris, it is a prerequisite for a religious system in which the god in question is THE only God, and not merely a highly powerful being, but in fact the source and giver of all creation and the physical universe itself.

This thread is a question from a catholic TO catholics about how to deal with a situation (teaching) that at first glance might appear to create a religious conflict. My post is directly mainly to that OP to reassure him/her (can’t remember!) that there is, in fact, no conflict. Persuading YOU (or any other doubter of the catholic faith) was not my goal here. But if you’d like me to have at that, I’d be glad to oblige in another thread or in PM.

I just would have preferred you to say many facts support the Catholic view rather than “all the facts”. That implies that people who hold different positions are ignorant or stupid.
I have also tried to answer the OPs original question in light of Catholic teaching and understanding the requirements of needing a job.
If my reply seemed a little combative, I apologize. I actually recognize that this type if issue can be difficult for many of you. But I do dislike arguments that are made from a presumed position of superiority.

 

[manualman]

But I do dislike arguments that are made from a presumed position of superiority.

You still are attempting to frame this as an argument. I’m not arguing with the OP, I’m encouraging from his/her OWN moral and theological position.

Again, if YOU want to argue it, we can do that elsewhere and I agree that in such a situation your point has merit. Though in such a situation, I would probably phrase it as “the facts support…” Many implies an implicit acknowledgement that not ALL do. IMO, all do. I’m wrong a lot. God, not so much. Not ALL parts of catholic moral theology is revelation, some is speculation and can be wrong. As far as I know, the revelation parts consist of God being the designer of human sexuality, His plan for the use of it is limited to spouses and that he purposely created sex and the transmission of life tangled together such that the purposeful sterilization of sex to isolate the pleasure from the life giving power is always wrong and harmful to the very nature of sex.

 

[edwest2]

The internet, aside from being filled with anonymous posters, provides no voice or other cues to determine the intent of writers. Also, I know some people simply resent Catholics, and people in general, even implying they have answers. The trend today is to look for exceptions, to tend toward the grey and to discount words written or spoken by religious people as either less reliable or totally unreliable when compared to secular writers/speakers.

We, meaning Catholics and nonCatholics, have been conditioned to believe that secular arguments are free or freeer than those tainted by religious considerations. This need not be so.

But yesterday, I stumbled across a discussion about a comic book which quickly degenerated into a profanity filled rant against a Catholic religious. Yet another forum has been crossed off my list of places to go.

I do hope that readers understand that Catholics are taught to be humble and not put others down simply for holding different beliefs. We are just glad to have a Church that backs up what it says on subjects like this with practical reasoning and facts.

Peace,
Ed