WARNING: This post contains mature content and may not be suitable for everyone. Anyone offended by common sense and logic or frank discussions about sex should not read the following. Also, anyone not willing to accept what they learn about me shouldn’t read any further, either.
There is a debate happening in America on sex education (and, more broadly, education in general). I want to, herein, offer my viewpoints about, specifically, sex education.
When I was a kid, and sex ed came up, the teachers separated us by sex and we watched a video about the physical body and the mechanics of intercourse. A lot of the video focused on how to raise a child and taking on the male gender role as the sole worker in the family. I think the video was produced in the 1950’s or something. (I watched it in the 1980’s).
It was also rather one-sided when it came to gender roles. It talked about how, as a male, I was expected to be the sole money-maker in the family, while my wife stayed home and kept house. It even, honest to Ghost, said I was to expect my wife to serve me when I was watching football or other sporting events since I, apparently, had a rough day at work.
FUCK. THAT.
Personally, I don’t fit into the strict male gender role. I never have and I never will. And I certainly won’t be bullied into a male gender role if I don’t want one.
The teachers, in a bold move, decided to let us watch the female video and the females got to watch the male video. This generated a lot of discussion, which, true to form, the teachers quashed as fast as possible. I didn’t understand why that was, honestly. They’re the ones who decided to show us the female video. What the hell did they expect from a room full of males?
Both videos were full of fear mongering about sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy. The female video in particular almost terrorized the viewer with the possibility of getting pregnant. It was a fine example of the hate towards the female sex that is so rampant in American culture.
The message was simple: Don’t Have Sex. In other words, abstinence only sexual education. Oral and anal sex wasn’t covered, either. Just plain vanilla missionary position sex.
And, of course, it only focused on straight sex. As someone who was interested in both sexes for sexual partners, there was nothing covering same-sex pairings. No instructions for safe anal intercourse; no instructions for safe oral sex. Nothing.
This lack of information kept me from experimenting and learning anything about same-sex sex for a few years, but I fixed that on my own. I know there are some who would applaud this, and that’s fine. But, remember, this lack of education means just that: a lack of education. It means our children are entering into a world without all the knowledge they need to properly function. This willful ignorance is damaging and could lead to some real problems down the road.
And this exposed a clear problem with American sex education programs.
One Size Does not Fit All
Our children need to learn about sex. Eventually, they are going to take their clothes off and touch each other. This drive is hardwired into our biology and saying, “Ew! Sex is bad! Don’t do it, unless you are married!” is a just plain naïve approach. People are going to have sex. Accept that fact. I, for one, hope they know how to do it properly.
Some would argue that teaching same-sex sex education causes kids to become gay. Let me clue you in on something you clearly haven’t figured out yet: gay people are born gay. There is nothing in the ‘verse that can make someone gay or straight if they weren’t born that way. No amount of so-called “reparative therapy” (or praying) is going to make a gay person straight and no amount of gay sex-ed is going to make someone gay. It’s best if you understand this now, as it will make your life a lot easier later on.
Adding same-sex sex education into the curriculum wouldn’t be that hard. Since we already segregate by sex, why not segregate further by orientation?
Straight boys are shown the “straight male” video, while gay boys are shown the “gay male” video. The same for straight girls and lesbians. Much of the information in the two sets of videos would be the same, though they would, by necessity, cover their specialized topics. Birth control and prevention would be highlighted in the curriculum, as well, with demonstrations on how to use a condom.
Society Needs to Change, First
Of course, our society, as it is constructed, would need to adapt to account for these changes. Certain, parochial, members of our society would stand in the way of these changes, seeing them as “bad” and “dangerous,” usually citing the religious dogma of their choice to withhold and prevent any sort of true growth, culturally speaking. Such people would prefer the society stayed firmly under the control of the Church and not in the hands of the people, where it belongs.
The major change which needs to take place, therefore, is the impeachment of the so-called “moral majority.” That is, people who believe their faith gives them the right to limit or withhold information from society.
Somehow, these people have gotten it into their heads they have the right to tell everyone else how to live their lives and who to love. This is the greatest evil a person can inflict on another person, in my view.
Abortion
If you truly want to prevent abortions (or, rather, lower the number of abortions) don’t make them illegal. Teach children about safe-sex. Put a condom on before you get up in Sally’s guts, so you don’t get her pregnant. Do her that favor, guys. After all, she’s allowing you your fun. Don’t ruin hers.
Does abstinence work to prevent abortions? Sure does.
Are people always going to practice abstinence? No way in hell. Simply put, people are going to have sex. (Remember that biology stuff I mentioned? It’s to blame.)
Wear a condom to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD’s. That is the real sex education.
I look forward to your comments.
The House of Goonery 
I’m going to have to disagree a good bit on this one. Not so much in spirit, but in the letter of what you ask for.
Orientation and Lifestyle choices have only an incidental place in an educational discussion about sex. Gay, Straight or Swirly makes no difference. It may be a lack of imagination on my part, but there’s nothing I can think of (mechanically) that a homosexual couple or group can get up too that a heterosexual couple or group can’t. If we are going to use the state mandated educational system to teach Straight or Gay, we may as well go all out and teach BDSM, Beastiality, and Infantilism as well. We are after all seeking to give our youth a well informed decision about all their choices, right? This path is a minefeild of bad ideas and slippery slopes.
Orientation, Lifestyle, and Religion are all very personal, sensitive and subjective subjects. I doubt there will ever by a universal consensus on these subjects. Keeping the state out of these subjects is what “Gay Rights” are all about, not making it “okay” to be gay. I’ve pointed out before that being liked unconditionally by everybody isn’t a right. Being treated fairly in areas you have little or no choice about such as work and living space is, as well as equal treatment under the Law and the use of public resources. Hell, it’s hard to get more mainstream than me— I’m middle aged, white, christian and heterosexual and almost everyone *despises* me…
Sex Education needs to cover the non-subjective health areas. Intercourse and Pregnancy, but not parenting or lifestyle. Intercourse, Pregnancy, STD’s , Ramificatoins of large objects inserted into little holes, and the Health and Hygene ramifications of all the above should give the teens plenty of material to giggle over, and should easily fill a 40 hour course if covered properly.
Leave the Moral aspects to the parents, couselors and whatever moral authorities the individuals choose the trust.
Incidently, there are people who teach the things that many believe something called “Sex Ed” would cover. Activism into supporting Qadishtu practioners and similar people would go a long way to a more healthy social sexual envirionment. Currently these kinds of people face issues with prosecution for prostitution and other selective application of outdated sex control laws. What they do isn’t illegal, much the same way as selling medical marijuana isn’t illegal, and faces many similar abuses in the application of the law.
LikeLike
“Orientation and Lifestyle choices have only an incidental place in an educational discussion about sex. Gay, Straight or Swirly makes no difference. It may be a lack of imagination on my part, but there’s nothing I can think of (mechanically) that a homosexual couple or group can get up too that a heterosexual couple or group can’t.”
Which is why much of the information would be the same throughout the four videos. The only real difference would be in the areas of mechanics and how to do it safely. Its a small distinction, but an important one.
“If we are going to use the state mandated educational system to teach Straight or Gay, we may as well go all out and teach BDSM, Beastiality, and Infantilism as well. We are after all seeking to give our youth a well informed decision about all their choices, right? This path is a minefeild of bad ideas and slippery slopes.”
*YAWN* The typical canned Conservative response. Honestly, Storydad, I expected better from you.
I am discussing straight, gay, and lesbian sex. Between humans. Of consenting age. (Whether BDSM is involved is up to the participants and is beyond the scope of basic sex education.)
“Orientation, Lifestyle, and Religion are all very personal, sensitive and subjective subjects. I doubt there will ever by a universal consensus on these subjects.”
On this, we agree. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to express my opinion on the matter.
“Keeping the state out of these subjects is what “Gay Rights” are all about, not making it “okay” to be gay.”
No, you’re wrong there. Gay rights are about both of these things.
“I’ve pointed out before that being liked unconditionally by everybody isn’t a right. Being treated fairly in areas you have little or no choice about such as work and living space is, as well as equal treatment under the Law and the use of public resources. Hell, it’s hard to get more mainstream than me— I’m middle aged, white, christian and heterosexual and almost everyone *despises* me….”
I’m really very sorry if you feel that people despise you. Perhaps if Christian heterosexuals stopped forcing their lifestyles on the rest of us, y’all wouldn’t be so despised. Just sayin’.
I never sated that everyone must be liked. My only point was to say that our GLBT youth deserve the same education about their sexual mechanics as straight kids get. That’s all.
Also, we aren’t discussing housing, here. We’re talking about education. Something everyone in this country, gay or straight, deserves to have.
Thanks for the comments.
LikeLike
I ask forgiveness in advance, I don’t know how to do the nifty quote thing from above, my web-fu is weak.
Safety can be covered by health. In a discussion of the health issues of any particular act, orientation plays only an incidental role. It’s an issue of perception vs. reality, with no actual need for different videos based on orientation. In fact seperate videos can be counter-productive— If we seek for a fuller understanding between the various groups, then an objective basis for discussion is needed anyway.
I’m actually mildly offended that you consider my arguments (in the classical sense) a typical canned response. All my responses are home cooked from freshly considered ingredients, mostly picked from your garden, always fresh and never frozen or from cans. I get more news and views from articles you post on your blog than any other source, I just don’t always agree with what they say. Often, the hyperbole of the articles linked spur me to search and read to find out what the ranting is actually about, and the responses I post are formulated from my gut after reading material from several sides of a given issue and attempting to parse facts from agendas. You may rest assured that I’m not actually a Conservative, except in the respect that I am conservative by nature, and not one of those radical right leaning loony extremists. I actually go out of my way to avoid the slogans and dogma of any particular group as my only real Hate target is politicians as a whole. 🙂
The problem with advocating for both equal rights and forcing others’ to accept your positions on a personal level is that it violates their rights to be assholes. And they do in fact have that right— it’s implicit in the rights to freedom of speech, religion, etc…
As it concerns actual legal and social rights— such as those of living space, education, treatement under the law, etc..— you can dress me in drag with a rainbow flag and I’ll march down mainstreet with you, bleed in defense of our rights, and even send my son to die to protect our freedoms.
I understand your desire for acceptance—and when I spoke of being despised, I meant by people from my own demographic, in many cases from people I know personally. I don’t pretend to know what it’s like to be you, but I do know plenty about family strife, public scorn, self loathing caused by the publicly expressed views of those that should have loved me unconditionally, and not fitting in where there are problems I cannot even concieve of, much less percieve. We may have different reasons for feeling as we do, but I assure you that my own life has at times seemed like a living nightmare, full of pain both physical and emotional.
However, If I am to take a stand against my personal judgement and morals in the defense of our rights and freedoms, for instance as in the case of abortion, then I must choose to stand for everyone’s rights and freedoms—which means accepting and protecting people’s right to be assholes. From my point of view, next to infanticide, hate speech and disappointment no matter how hurtful barely have any weight at all.
LikeLike
“I ask forgiveness in advance, I don’t know how to do the nifty quote thing from above, my web-fu is weak.”
No problem. If you want, I can explain it on Facebook, as the software here isn’t letting me explain it without applying the code.
“Safety can be covered by health. In a discussion of the health issues of any particular act, orientation plays only an incidental role. It’s an issue of perception vs. reality, with no actual need for different videos based on orientation. In fact seperate videos can be counter-productive— If we seek for a fuller understanding between the various groups, then an objective basis for discussion is needed anyway.”
Okay, the only reason I mentioned having separate videos was to avoid having parents who object to their children being exposed to GLBT themes trying to torpedo, what is in my mind, an essential education need for everyone concerned. (See the ongoing discussions about evolution vs. creationism for what I mean).
For example, a Christian couple might object to their son or daughter being exposed to an instructional video on safe homosexual sex. Having separate videos would alleviate some of those concerns. (At least, as it concerns their child). They are then free to tell their child whatever they want regarding homosexuality in the privacy of their own home.
Add to this, the problem of giggly, immature children, some of whom are probably gay/lesbian and most who are not sitting still long enough through information that doesn’t concern them. (Bored children make terrible listeners).
“I’m actually mildly offended that you consider my arguments (in the classical sense) a typical canned response.”
You have to understand, I’ve heard that particular response so much that it sounds like a broken record to me. It’s been refuted hundreds of times, which is why I was surprised that you responded the way you did.
“I get more news and views from articles you post on your blog than any other source,”
*raises eyebrow, Spock-like*
In all honesty, I find that hard to believe. With the prevalence of so many media outlets, my blog is insignificant as a media outlet. (Mainly its just insignificant).
“I just don’t always agree with what they say.”
You don’t have to agree. I welcome input, but don’t be surprised when I refute your statements. That’s part of what a conversation is, as I am well aware you know.
“Often, the hyperbole of the articles linked spur me to search and read to find out what the ranting is actually about, and the responses I post are formulated from my gut after reading material from several sides of a given issue and attempting to parse facts from agendas. You may rest assured that I’m not actually a Conservative, except in the respect that I am conservative by nature, and not one of those radical right leaning loony extremists. I actually go out of my way to avoid the slogans and dogma of any particular group as my only real Hate target is politicians as a whole. 🙂 ”
*nods* “Ranting” is not what I do, but I won’t quibble with it.
“The problem with advocating for both equal rights and forcing others’ to accept your positions on a personal level is that it violates their rights to be assholes. And they do in fact have that right— it’s implicit in the rights to freedom of speech, religion, etc…”
I agree, except at no point am I expecting people to accept my position on a personal level. (Nor am I “forcing” anyone to do anything). Honestly, I don’t care if people accept me (or my viewpoint) or not. I am who and what I am and fuck anyone who doesn’t like it.
They can say whatever they want, so long as they understand that freedom of speech stops at slander/libel. So calling all GLBT people pedophiles is slander/libel.
If someone wants to say, “I don’t like gay people, because I think its against God’s Law.” Fine. That’s expressing an opinion. But calling GLBT people names because they are GLBT, is nothing but hate speech, and that is NOT protected by the 1st amendment (or shouldn’t be).
In addition, it should be understood that it is implicit in the 1st amendment that I have the right to express myself, as well.
Now, if everyone just lived up to that ideal, America would be a better place.
“As it concerns actual legal and social rights— such as those of living space, education, treatement under the law, etc..— you can dress me in drag with a rainbow flag and I’ll march down mainstreet with you, bleed in defense of our rights, and even send my son to die to protect our freedoms.”
I’ll hold you to that the next time Gay Pride comes around. 😉 😀
“I understand your desire for acceptance—and when I spoke of being despised, I meant by people from my own demographic, in many cases from people I know personally. I don’t pretend to know what it’s like to be you, but I do know plenty about family strife, public scorn, self loathing caused by the publicly expressed views of those that should have loved me unconditionally, and not fitting in where there are problems I cannot even concieve of, much less percieve. We may have different reasons for feeling as we do, but I assure you that my own life has at times seemed like a living nightmare, full of pain both physical and emotional.”
*nods*
“However, If I am to take a stand against my personal judgement and morals in the defense of our rights and freedoms, for instance as in the case of abortion, then I must choose to stand for everyone’s rights and freedoms—which means accepting and protecting people’s right to be assholes. From my point of view, next to infanticide, hate speech and disappointment no matter how hurtful barely have any weight at all.”
I feel the same way, Storydad. I’m so used to the vitriol people spew at me, just for daring to express an opinion, that I’m numb to it. If expressing my opinion makes me an asshole, so be it.
LikeLike
Okay, the only reason I mentioned having separate videos was to avoid having parents who object to their children being exposed to GLBT themes trying to torpedo, what is in my mind, an essential education need for everyone concerned. (See the ongoing discussions about evolution vs. creationism for what I mean).
For example, a Christian couple might object to their son or daughter being exposed to an instructional video on safe homosexual sex. Having separate videos would alleviate some of those concerns. (At least, as it concerns their child). They are then free to tell their child whatever they want regarding homosexuality in the privacy of their own home.
This is where we disconnect. I don’t feel there is any difference in a given sex act regardless of who performs it on whom. If we are going to discuss the safety and health concerns of anal sex, as an example, choice of partner is irrelevant to the discussion. We can talk mechanics, positioning and hygene and never even into the ballpark of if it’s a gay thing or not. It may be more prevelant among gays due to the available equipment of those involved, but a comprehensive discussion will also include fingers, toes, toys and god help us (and Richard Gere, apparently) even small animals. At no point does any of this information differ due to the orientation of the practitioner.
A secondary aspect of my disagreement comes from your founding principal that orientation is set at birth by genetics and has no root in environment, experiance or choice.
I’ll definatly accept that genetics plays a role, as it does with everything—humans are little more than an evolving chemical reaction, and that starts with the recombination of RNA and DNA at conception, and is influenced by no doubt hundreds of things we cannot even yet conceive of since this process is only relativily recently even known, much less understood.
That’s where my basis of elective education based on orientation coming much later than the simple health and saftey education that children need when they start experimenting with eachother. I understand and agree with the desire for a safe and accepting environment to ‘learn the ropes’, but I don’t believe that young people need to know the ropes until they have made a few decisions and/or discoveries for and about themselves and their own personal needs.
Removing the outdated, intrusive and selectivly applied sex control laws would allow for the private sector to effectivly address these private subjects in a more individually appropriate and effective manner, and at a more appropriate stage in a young adults life.
*nods* “Ranting” is not what I do, but I won’t quibble with it.
I meant the videos and linked articles you post, not your own articles.
I don’t watch TV with commercials except the few that come on HULU. I don’t listen to the radio except for my 10 minute ride to and from work, I wait until most movies come out on DVD—I’ve not been to a theater in probably a year or more, I think Wolverine might be the last thing I saw. When I read it is a fiction (sci-fi or fantasy) book, or an RPG book, certainly not a newspaper, and no way in hell am I reading one of the political idiotic diatribes our so-called leaders like to publish to push their agendas.
I only notice the stories you and a few other friends post because you are my friends. If not for that, I’d live my life blissfully ignorant that the war of red vs. blue even existed, and unfortunatly neither side seems to be able to print more than a few words of truth per 100 words of mis-representation and hyperbole of the other sides’ position.
I’d not call discounting an argument without consideration the same as refuting it. I used intentionally extreme examples to illustrate my point, which in the case of BDSM you pretty much repeated my entire stance on the subject as a whole, just applied more narrowly than I would. I’ll grant the other examples may be invalid for educational discussion, though for being illegal as opposed to immoral or inapplicable.
LikeLike
“This is where we disconnect. I don’t feel there is any difference in a given sex act regardless of who performs it on whom.”
Right. We agree on this. What I am saying is those parents who would object would do so on religious grounds citing immorality. This is what the four separate videos would try to avoid.
Clear now?
“A secondary aspect of my disagreement comes from your founding principal that orientation is set at birth by genetics and has no root in environment, experiance or choice.”
I’m bi. I was born bi. There is nothing in my environment (raised in a Southern Baptist home where homosexuality was actively preached against and gender roles were strictly enforced), experience (no molestations or anything of the sort took place), and I certainly didn’t choose to be bi.
Therefore, genetics is the root cause.
“I understand and agree with the desire for a safe and accepting environment to ‘learn the ropes’, but I don’t believe that young people need to know the ropes until they have made a few decisions and/or discoveries for and about themselves and their own personal needs.”
Which is why, again, I was not advocating sex ed begin in grade school, but at a later time.
Nor was I advocating for an entirely new system to be put in place. In fact, as I’ve said before, all I was doing was suggesting a few key changes to the current curricula.
I’m not sure how many more times I have to repeat that before you understand it.
“Removing the outdated, intrusive and selectivly applied sex control laws would allow for the private sector to effectivly address these private subjects in a more individually appropriate and effective manner, and at a more appropriate stage in a young adults life.”
Again, we agree, though, as I’ve said, ad infinity, I was suggesting changes to, and not a completely new, curricula.
“I’d not call discounting an argument without consideration the same as refuting it.”
I discounted your statement because, quite frankly, I’m tired of having to respond to the same tired arguments of “homosexuality = pedophilia = bestiality” all the god damn time.
Now if you want to take the devils advocate stance to have an in-depth discussion to explore the issue, come up with an intelligent stance and don’t mindlessly repeat what has been said before.
LikeLike
Ah, I see why you object, and I apologize.
I didn’t mean to equate BDSM, Beastiality, or Pedophillia with Homosexuality, though I can see where it looks like I did. Mea Culpa on that.
I simply chose off the top of my head some common non-Hetero or Homo sex themes I commonly see in pornography to use as examples without thinking of the stereotypes they are associated with. Actually, honestly, I think the last time I heard of homosexuality linked to any of that in particular was little boys in the bathroom, and that when I was myself a little boy. I doubt I’ve given it another thought in decades. For obvious reasons you pay more attention to that sort of thing than I would. I am very sorry, that was offensive.
I think I can simply leave it at we both agree that changes are needed, and differ only on where the focus of those changes need to be. I’ll get back to you when I win the election to the state legislature, and it actually becomes a problem that I have the ability to deal with. 🙂
LikeLike
Besides, these columns are getting kinda narrow….
LikeLike
We’re at (or near) the limit, now. I can go into the preferences and set it deeper, but I think we’ve pretty much said all we need to, I should think. 😀
LikeLike
“Ah, I see why you object, and I apologize.
I didn’t mean to equate BDSM, Beastiality, or Pedophillia with Homosexuality, though I can see where it looks like I did. Mea Culpa on that.”
Noted. Thank you for apologizing.
“I think I can simply leave it at we both agree that changes are needed, and differ only on where the focus of those changes need to be..”
*nods* Indeed. Thank you for commenting as much as you did. It was an interesting conversation, both here and on Facebook. Thanks for that.
LikeLike
WordPress ate my post the first time out and I forgot to include that Sex Ed should include Abortion and it’s health ramifications as well.
For or Against, young women should understand not only the potentially devestating and definatly life altering effects of a successful pregnancy, but also that abortion is far from a consequense-free alternative to being pregnant. Young men should also be exposed to this—preventing unwanted pregnancy is far, far superior to ending one prematurely.
I belive strongly that freedom and choices no matter how personally odious we may find them must be protected, but even the most callous supporter of abortion should agree that preventing the pregnancy in the first place is the vastly superior course both ethically and medically speaking.
LikeLike
“For or Against, young women should understand not only the potentially devestating and definatly life altering effects of a successful pregnancy, but also that abortion is far from a consequense-free alternative to being pregnant. Young men should also be exposed to this—preventing unwanted pregnancy is far, far superior to ending one prematurely.”
I agree that abortion should be included in sex ed and the consequences of both pregnancy and abortion should be covered, (which is why I mention it in the original post). It’s also why I discuss the use of condoms in addition to abstinence education.
The original sex ed videos that I watched as a youth never mention the option of abortion, or even losing the baby due to miscarriage. It presented only one option: successful birth and a typical family unit. That’s it.
In essence, I am saying that our sex education programs need to be updated to include more accurate information (about a host of subjects) so that our youth understand how they can be healthy and safe during sex.
Sex is supposed to be fun, not a frightening thing to be feared.
As to abortion, I think where we differ on abortion is you are 100% against them, for any reason and I feel it’s the woman’s choice. This is a discussion for another time, though, as abortion is only one small part of the larger whole.
“I belive strongly that freedom and choices no matter how personally odious we may find them must be protected, but even the most callous supporter of abortion should agree that preventing the pregnancy in the first place is the vastly superior course both ethically and medically speaking.”
As a supporter of a womans right to choose, I don’t think of myself as “callous,” though from your point of view, I suppose it could be seen that way. After all, I’m for ensuring the womans right to freedom of choice, rather than a single option mandated by some bureaucrat in an office somewhere. Talk about “death panels.” *shakes head*
Preventing pregnancy: Yup. The condoms cover that quite well, I think. (I mentioned them, right? 😉 )
Thanks for commenting.
LikeLike
See? I knew you still have good stuff in that noggin of yours! LOL
I’m going to go out on a limb and disagree with the whole concept of sex education in the school. Sex is a private and personal act that I don’t think should be discussed in public. If parent’s stopped shying away from the subject, their children might grow up with the same values they have.
Teaching your own children about this subject is better for both sides. Christian parents would be able to explain this very natural act, but at the same time, allow them to impart values such as waiting until one is married before having sexual intercourse. By the same token, it would give a child/teen a safe and loving environment in which to ask questions about homosexuality if that’s what is needed.
To be honest, I don’t see homosexuality as being something people are accepting more and more. My friends all accept that I am a Lesbian, but there’s so much in the media that tells me that I am just lucky to have found the right people to be friends with. Because of this, I think that it is most important for children/teenagers to have a safe environment in which to talk about their feelings. It’s fine if the parents aren’t sure what to say/do, but showing support is more beneficial than anything you can think of to say.
Why should it be the responsibility of total strangers to teach your children about sex? Especially when you probably won’t agree with what they say.
LikeLike
“Why should it be the responsibility of total strangers to teach your children about sex? Especially when you probably won’t agree with what they say.”
I was presenting an addition to the current system in use, rather than suggesting a completely new approach. Having parents teaching their kids about sex is absolutely the best option. However, in our society, many parents would rather let someone else do this task than take the responsibility to do it themselves.
It’s often easier to modify a currently used system rather than replacing it with one that would be seen as “radical” by some. (Personal responsibility being that radical concept.)
Thanks for commenting.
LikeLike
Ah, then I misunderstood your intent. Yes, people hate being parents until someone blatantly tells them how to raise their children; then the gloves are off. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. *shrugs*
LikeLike
Me too, but I don’t understand people too much. Thanks for commenting.
LikeLike