[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.7276

File: 1602650854505.png (311.38 KB, 635x358, 635:358, 1499554752527.png) ImgOps Google

What much sex ed should be taught to children in school and at what ages / grade levels?

 No.7277

File: 1602654381396.png (377.67 KB, 1024x924, 256:231, Sarah_has_a_controversial_….png) ImgOps Google

This will come across as glib and possibly as trolling, but I've got to think... why even bother?

As long as a quarter or a third or so of the American population believes that LGBT people are inferior subhumans as well as that anyone who has healthy, life-affirming, and natural sex out of wedlock is an evil being risking hellfire, then there's never going to be a consensus on what to teach. Never. Ever. So why try? Skip the subject.

It's like trying to teach Chemistry when a giant chunk of administrators, parents, teachers, et cetera sincerely believe that crystal meth is as harmless as aspirin and want to promote its recreational use in the classroom. In those extreme circumstances, I'd say that it's best to try to work things out outside of the scope of government. Give kids private instruction. Set up private institutions. And so on.

The libertarians seem to have this right to me. Leave it to parents and kids to work things out by themselves. Sure, it will be horrible for many. But letting a thousand flowers bloom in terms of instruction, so to speak, is a hell of a lot better than whatever bilge the three scientists and one lunatic result in as a """"compromise""""" on.

Also, condoms are for nerds.

 No.7278

>>7277
I agree with most of this, and the conclusion.

Simply put, it's something kids will learn online.
Internet's great. It contains a bit of everything.
If anything, I'd prioritize teaching basic internet paranoia and how to use tor.
That'd certainly get kids better able to get through life than sex ed ever would.

 No.7279

>>7278
I support every word you just said.

 No.7280

>>7276
Most of what I learned about sexuality came from my religious education as a child.  I suppose those subject to deities will need to know what is Mortal Sin before they risk their souls with impure thoughts or actions.

>>7277
Quite correct.  Diverse moral ideas about sexuality are nearly impossible to integrate into one consensus training course, beyond perhaps to explain basic anatomy and (mostly) unavoidable events such as menstruation.

 No.7281

>>7280
>>7277
There's definitely a biological component to sex education:
Sexual maturity / Puberty
Menstruation
Pregnancy
Even birth control

I wouldn't let kids find that out on their own.

 No.7282

>>7277
Does it hurt when women have their period? I'm asking because I was never taught in school. Does anyone here know any women who menstrate?

I think it's important to have a baseline understanding of the body, and the bodies of the opposite sex, at the very least. I know almost nothing about women or their bodies. They are amazingly complex compared to the relatively simple male bodies.

 No.7283

>>7277
>>7278
Y'all underestimate how much harm this attitude will cause. In your chemistry example, your suggestion is that because it takes effort to fight misinformation we should just let it be taught freely that crystal meth is harmless and our children should be encouraged to take it. I suppose you can take a "I got mine, hope it happens to work out for everyone else" stance. But we are going to fuck over a lot of kids this way.

 No.7288

>>7282
> Does it hurt when women have their period? I'm asking because I was never taught in school. Does anyone here know any women who menstrate?
Is this an honest or rhetorical question?

 No.7289

>>7288
Honest, but not expecting an answer since the population of ciswomen on the site is rather small.

 No.7290

File: 1602703459710.jpg (11.57 KB, 310x163, 310:163, download (25).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7289
There's cramps and bloodloss. For some women it's very heavy, for some it's not that bad.
Sometimes diarrhea and nausea.

My ex was having bad times some months.
My daughter hasn't complained much so far.

You can always ask your mother/sister of course.

 No.7293

>>7281
>Even birth control
That one is contested morally.

 No.7294

>>7293
Why?

 No.7295

>>7294
The Catholic God finds birth control immoral because it is not being open to God's gift of life and it may (although I don't know if this is true scientifically) kill a fertilized egg, which is murder.  The only reliable Catholic solution for controlling birth is abstinence.

 No.7299

=>>7295
The birth control I'm familiar with does not "kill" eggs. It either prevents ovulation (the releasing of an egg every month) or it prevents eggs from implanting in the uteral lining. Which happens sometimes anyway. So there's no reason to oppose it, even for religious reasons. Anyone who claims that is using religion to justify their attempt to control women.

 No.7302

File: 1602721987617.jpg (68.89 KB, 621x676, 621:676, 1505437138498.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7299
>Anyone who claims that is using religion to justify their attempt to control women.
I'd disagree with that.  Many religious people have a lot of beliefs that are really wacky but sincerely held.  Just because a religious belief is contradicted by scientific evidence doesn't mean there's some ulterior motive for it.

 No.7310

>>7299
>>7302
Well, I consider my training in Catholicism fairly representative.  There is no obligation for Gods to align with science, they are known for contrary assertions, in fact.

 No.7311

>>7280
>"Diverse moral ideas about sexuality are nearly impossible to integrate into one consensus training course, beyond perhaps to explain basic anatomy and (mostly) unavoidable events such as menstruation."

This is exactly what it all boils down to, for me. We can't agree on anything besides a tiny sliver of things that are best taught outside of the formal, government-based educational context. So why force a pseudo-agreement that would only make everybody made and constitute a mixture between truth and lies?

>>7281
See: >>7293

>>7283
Imagine that 33% of Americans believed that the Holocaust didn't happen and actively pushed for schools to force teachers to promote that idea as factual history. Suppose that, instead of simply deciding to not talk about the subject, the topic is opened up to a ""compromise"". Political groups get together to hammer out a freaky hybrid of various ideas.

What would happen? Likely something where there's a "Teach the Controversy" / "Committee For an Open Debate on the Holocaust" curriculum in which a mixture of fake and real information gets pumped out as a kind of horrific sludge. No doubt.

I much rather would have educational institutions, in that circumstance, avoid it all entirely and understand that the quest to fight truth with lies can't be decided by government edict. It has to be hashed out by us. The regular people.

 No.7312

>>7311
>*would only make everybody mad

 No.7315

File: 1602738859166.jpg (138.58 KB, 1204x1115, 1204:1115, 1598660814733.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7311
I'd say the basic biology can be taught in public schools and anything practical / "how-to" can be learned at home.  It also varies locally.  When I was in the school, we got some basic sex education.

I wonder if a privately funded website already exists for online sex ed...

 No.7317

>>7315
Got to say that even basic biology is something that's under dispute. After all, large swaths of the American people deny transgender people even the right to exist and will respond with passionate, seething anger if a biology lesson tries to teach that somebody can be female without breasts, say, or such. Or that a man can lack facial hair.

I do second the idea that we ought to have some kind of a version of the Khan Academy for sex-ed. Online, seriously researched and fairly done material done privately. I'm sure that the project would work with enough time and money put behind it.

 No.7319

>>7317
>large swaths of the American people deny transgender people even the right to exist
True.  I've not quite found the word for it, but there's a prescriptive version of biological science (or a better word) that enforces gender on humans.

 No.7320

File: 1602764802509.jpg (64.58 KB, 530x1024, 265:512, cold-warm-up.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7317
>Got to say that even basic biology is something that's under dispute. After all, large swaths of the American people deny transgender people
I'd say that understanding transgender is quite advanced biology, not basic biology.  My understanding is that brain scans of MtF transgender individuals are observably different from brain scans of cisgender men and closer to those of cisgender women.  But the brain is the most complex organ of the body and still not very well understood.

>respond with passionate, seething anger if a biology lesson tries to teach that somebody can be female without breasts, say, or such.
I don't know anyone who would say that a woman who undergoes a double mastectomy is no longer female.  If you're referring to people rejecting the use of the word "female" for MtF transgender individuals, well that is more an issue of language than of biology.  In one sense, the word "female" denotes bodily biological sex (typified in humans by XX chromosomes, ovaries, etc.), while recently another sense has developed that refers to mental gender identification.

>>7319
>prescriptive version of biological science
Science, by definition, is descriptive, not prescriptive.  Enforcing gender roles falls outside the province of science.

 No.7321

>>7320
>Enforcing...falls outside the province of science.
I agree.  And it confuses me somewhat because I usually think of enforcement as having authorities with the power to punish, and I can't figure out who they might be.  Perhaps schoolteachers, but we are talking about life outside the classroom.  I will call it pseudoscience until I receive a more respectful word or phrase.

 No.7322

>>7311
>I much rather would have educational institutions, in that circumstance, avoid it all entirely and understand that the quest to fight truth with lies can't be decided by government edict. It has to be hashed out by us. The regular people.
This is a false dichotomy. Our options are not "teach nothing, or teach sludge". We can, in fact, teach the truth. And that's what is done a lot of the time. In other places with the "hybrid" education, we can just fight to make it better. We don't throw things away because they aren't perfect, we make them better.

On top, unlike your example, a hybrid education would probably be better than the alternative when it comes to sex education. Even parents who know the facts decently may not want to go over such a subject with their children in the right detail. They may not know what is the right thing to teach. Like if we were having issues with any other facet of society - car mechanics, dentistry, I dunno funny cat videos - we wouldn't try to force it onto parents and say it's their problem. Teaching is not a no skill, no knowledge profession. People train to be able to teach effectively. While I think a layperson is plenty capable of teaching things, they are not really capable of creating an effective lesson plan and curriculum on a subject they are not trained in. They are not effective in doing the research to figure it out. They may not have the time or energy to do it even if they would be.

So yeah, I can't see in any context this being a good idea to pass the buck to parents. But maybe I don't know just how bad and monstrous the compromised education you speak of is. Do you have an example of what's being taught? I've seen once the difference between normal sex ed videos and the sex ed videos edited for abstinence only sex ed. It's not great, it is really bad even. But still probably better than having relied on parents who would tell those kids something worse.

 No.7329

>>7320
The core thing is that transgender people exist, and the response from the political right-wing is either a)to absolutely refuse to discuss them at all in sex education, which is deliberately misleading and actively causes harm because it forbids helpful information to students (especially those who are struggling with their gender identities as kids) or b)refer to them as evil sexual deviants with a depraved fetish and insist upon teaching children to watch out for them as possible danger, which is even worse than a) and is effectively using schools to profligate hate speech.

And this is just the beginning. The right-wing also wants to teach that homosexuality is connected to pedophilia, particularly that bisexuals and gays alike are more likely to molest children than straight individuals by a large margin, and additionally state that being straight makes one less prone to STDs inherently than bisexuals or gays. Horrifying.

In these circumstances, is it not best to simply avoid the topic altogether instead of allowing the right-wing to force a mixture of lies and truth being propagated to the young? I think so. Totally.

 No.7330

>>7322
We could teach the truth, but we can't because 1/3 to 1/4 of the American people believes in lies over truth and has active political power and will prevent the truth from being taught if we try. The President is sympatric to the right-wing nuts. So is the Supreme Court. So is Congress. They've got the power, and it's better to not teach anything at all, I think, then to profligate evil nonsense that's mixed with some truth as a ""compromise"".

 No.7334

>>7329
>using schools to profligate hate speech.
Huh?  I just looked up "profligate" and I could find any definitions that make sense in your sentence.

 No.7336

>>7334
I typed something garbled and accidentally clicked on the wrong spelling correction on Google Chrome, sorry. I meant "proclaim".

 No.7338

>>7330
I see the point you are making. I agree with the statement you make in the way you are making it. I just don't agree that this reflects our actual reality accurately.

For instance, what is the "evil nonsense" you are speaking of? Can you give me an example? I'm not saying this isn't a thing to be concerned with, or that we should accept abominable compromise. I just don't have knowledge of the kind of thing you are speaking of.

 No.7340

>>7338
One specific example is the pseudo-scientific treatise trying to be taught as fact to kids and adults alike in education called Homosexuality and Child Abuse that instructors at the Family Research Council, a right-wing think tank, put together. The specific claim it centers around is "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls". That comes to mind from me having read about it before, but they are countless other examples.

Details on the treatise as well as background details here: https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

As somebody with a religiously conservative background, I spent my teen years sincerely believing this, personally, and making the claim to my peers. Looking back, I feel really ashamed with myself. This sort of miseducation is horrid.

 No.7341

I should be clear that this was told to me as a teen not specifically in my public school sex education course, which I honestly can hardly remember a single word of (not a knock on the teachers, eh, that's just my poor memory probably), but referred to me by somebody else (can't remember exactly who, again, memory... might have been a friend).

I certainly concede that a reasonable sex education course is possible in America and even that many students have practically gotten such education in some places in the past... I just think that, like I said before, it's not something that can really be managed wide-scale.

 No.7343

>>7340
>Details on the treatise as well as background details here: https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
So if I understand this right, "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" is a misleading half-truth that lumps together two mostly non-overlapping groups: (1) men who are sexually attracted to other men and (2) men who are sexually attracted to prepubescent and pubescent boys.  Male pedophiles/hebephiles are more likely to have a same-sex attraction than male teleiophiles (which kinda makes sense intuitively, since prepubescent children don't have as pronounced secondary sexual characteristics as adults).  So there is no evidence that homosexual men who are attracted to adult men molest boys at disproportionately high rates.

tl;dr:
P(X molests boys | X has a same-sex attraction) > P(X molests boys)
but
P(X molests boys | X has a same-sex attraction to adults) ≅ P(X molests boys)

Do I understand that right?

 No.7344

>>7343
My understanding is that we have something like:

P(X molests boys | X has a same-sex attraction) {?} P(X molests boys)

We don't really know about that in  depth. Research is ambiguous and not enough study has been done. I think.

And your point that even when:

P(X molests boys | X has a same-sex attraction) > P(X molests boys)
{while}
P(X molests boys | X has a same-sex attraction to adults) ≅ P(X molests boys)

Is a good one as well. That's possible. We're just not sure.

But to boil things down, well, either the right-wing activists are pushing either a)a misleading half-truth that plays statistical games that are technically plausible sounding but fall apart with analysis or b)outright lying.

 No.7345

I'm reminded of a point made by anti-racist campaigners such as Daryl Davis that one can say about white people "the evidence indicates that white men go on killing sprees at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which black men and other males that aren't while go on killing sprees". But that's a misleading half-truth. It's lumping together non-overlapping groups. Just like myths about black men.

 No.7346

>>7345
Do you have a pointer to more information about this?  I vaguely remember encountering an argument that seemed plausible that white males are in fact somewhat more likely than black males to go on high-body-count murder sprees (e.g., school shootings).  

 No.7347

>>7346
I think you're missing the point. Even if there is a higher likelihood of that, it's going to be for cultural reasons, not because of their race. That's the point.

 No.7354

>>7347
^This^


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]