Texas School Has Chlamydia Outbreak And Now Needs To Rethink Sex "Ed"

[Lowe0]

Feel free to do so. Or, work at your job and then use your money to hire 'professionals' to do so. I really don't care what you do, as long as it's not done with my tax dollars through the government.

Even if doing nothing results in even more of your tax dollars being spent on welfare?

 

[steveh_131]

Even if doing nothing results in even more of your tax dollars being spent on welfare?

Yes. I will not support government social engineering, regardless of the alleged benefits.

 

[jamil]

Even if doing nothing results in even more of your tax dollars being spent on welfare?

He didn't say do nothing. "Something" doesn't have to be universally applied and mandated through the power of government.

 

[Woobie]

Even if doing nothing results in even more of your tax dollars being spent on welfare?

It wouldn't cost us tax dollars if we took our rights and responsibilities back from those we gave them to.

 

[Lowe0]

It wouldn't cost us tax dollars if we took our rights and responsibilities back from those we gave them to.

Is that realistic, though? I'm not interested in ideal situations, only the world as it'll exist come Monday morning.

 

[Woobie]

Is that realistic, though? I'm not interested in ideal situations, only the world as it'll exist come Monday morning.

Sure it is. I'm not talking about some sort of libertarian ideal or anarchy. Simple things like taking ownership of our children's education and the security of our family go a long way in passively wresting back control over important areas in our lives.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Surely, despite whatever challenges teachers face, they're doing a better job than I'd be doing in teaching sex ed, or any subject outside of my area of expertise.

What makes you think that?

 

[Lowe0]

What makes you think that?

Because I don't know the first thing about education. Just because I know a thing doesn't mean I'd be effective at teaching it.

 

[Woobie]

On a semi-related note: they say that those who can't do, teach. Does that mean sex-ed teachers......

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Because I don't know the first thing about education. Just because I know a thing doesn't mean I'd be effective at teaching it.

Nothing personal, but "nonsense!" We're not talking about teaching children basic "readin', 'ritin', & 'rithmatic" or even more esoteric subjects like "civics" or "sociology", we're talking about imparting basic life instruction to our children. MOSTLY, that consists of teaching our children "right from wrong" and certainly it includes imparting parental wisdom concerning matters sexual. It shouldn't be a matter of embarrassment, considering the amount of sexual situations our children are exposed to in common media entertainment today, and it shouldn't be a subject which requires the "expertise" of an "education professional" to get across to our kids. It also shouldn't be a subject which our kids learn about "on the street" before they hear it from us.

 

[jamil]

Because I don't know the first thing about education. Just because I know a thing doesn't mean I'd be effective at teaching it.

Wait. I thought we've established that sex ed wasn't supposed to be a "how-to" class. If it is, then parents should oppose that.

What kids NEED to know about it is what are the consequences of having sex and how to avoid negative consequences. If you feel ineffective teaching that I have to wonder if you're really serious about that or just want schools to do what should be your job as a parent. Talking to your kids about sex doesn't have to be a major ordeal.

 

[Lowe0]

Wait. I thought we've established that sex ed wasn't supposed to be a "how-to" class. If it is, then parents should oppose that.

What kids NEED to know about it is what are the consequences of having sex and how to avoid negative consequences. If you feel ineffective teaching that I have to wonder if you're really serious about that or just want schools to do what should be your job as a parent. Talking to your kids about sex doesn't have to be a major ordeal.

I don't think the "how to" should be about intercourse itself, but about risk mitigation. How to get birth control pills, when they're effective or ineffective, and how to respond to a missed dose. How to check a condom for the correct fit and no trapped air. How to recognize STDs and get treatment. How consent works, legally, in their home state.

And no, I wouldn't be effective at teaching those things to a room full of teenagers. All the things they teach you in 4 years of earning a degree in education? I have none of that. I can teach a person one-on-one who's motivated to learn a technical task (say, how to field strip and clean a particular model of pistol that I'm familiar with), but that's the extent of my teaching abilities.

As for whether I could teach safe sex to my own children? Thankfully, I have none, so that'll never be an issue.

 

[ashby koss]

I don't see this as a school or government issue, but a parenting issue. Plain and simple.

 

[Lowe0]

I don't see this as a school or government issue, but a parenting issue. Plain and simple.

But if parents won't step up and take care of it, should we take continue taking the economic hit of unwanted pregnancy? We might as well forklift a pallet of cash into the parking lot, light it on fire, then torch the forklift for good measure. What's conservative about that?

 

[jamil]

I don't think the "how to" should be about intercourse itself, but about risk mitigation. How to get birth control pills, when they're effective or ineffective, and how to respond to a missed dose. How to check a condom for the correct fit and no trapped air. How to recognize STDs and get treatment. How consent works, legally, in their home state.

And no, I wouldn't be effective at teaching those things to a room full of teenagers. All the things they teach you in 4 years of earning a degree in education? I have none of that. I can teach a person one-on-one who's motivated to learn a technical task (say, how to field strip and clean a particular model of pistol that I'm familiar with), but that's the extent of my teaching abilities.

As for whether I could teach safe sex to my own children? Thankfully, I have none, so that'll never be an issue.

But isn't our context what you teach YOUR kids, and that it's not something that it doesn't need to be government's responsibility? No one's asking you to teach a room full of teenagers. I wouldn't want you teaching mine anyway. And I'm sure you wouldn't want me teaching your kids. When it comes to a subject like sex, you should teach your kids what you believe they should know. Maybe if you still think you're inadequate to teach that, I guess you could hire someone to do it at your own expense.

 

[Lowe0]

But isn't our context what you teach YOUR kids, and that it's not something that it doesn't need to be government's responsibility? No one's asking you to teach a room full of teenagers. I wouldn't want you teaching mine anyway. And I'm sure you wouldn't want me teaching your kids. When it comes to a subject like sex, you should teach your kids what you believe they should know. Maybe if you still think you're inadequate to teach that, I guess you could hire someone to do it at your own expense.

Nope. From the first post of the thread, the context was what the school teaches, not the parents. We're all stuck paying for unwanted pregnancy, whether through welfare payments, economic opportunity costs, or higher crime rates if the newly minted parents can't or won't actively raise their unwanted children. As as result, if we all get the bill, then we need to be looking at ways to lower the costs. Preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place seems like the smart way to go about it.

 

[steveh_131]

Preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place seems like the smart way to go about it.

Great. Go do that yourself. The government won't do it right. And in its attempts it will find new and inventive ways to abuse our rights and indoctrinate our children.

 

[jamil]

Nope. From the first post of the thread, the context was what the school teaches, not the parents. We're all stuck paying for unwanted pregnancy, whether through welfare payments, economic opportunity costs, or higher crime rates if the newly minted parents can't or won't actively raise their unwanted children. As as result, if we all get the bill, then we need to be looking at ways to lower the costs. Preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place seems like the smart way to go about it.

Judging by anecdotal and statistical results, it doesn't seem much like "professional educators" are up to the challenge. I don't necessarily blame the abysmal state of government schools on teachers per se, but, teachers were getting better results 70 years ago than they seem to be getting nowadays - in pretty much every subject taught. Why would I think giving money to a "professional educator" would be anymore efficient than teaching important moral subjects to my kids myself?

Surely, despite whatever challenges teachers face, they're doing a better job than I'd be doing in teaching sex ed, or any subject outside of my area of expertise.

Nope. The context to which I was referring was indeed YOU teaching your own kids rather than just about what schools are teaching. Maybe you were comparing your teaching skills to the skills of professional educators, in the context of you replacing them in the classroom. If so, WTF? I wouldn't doubt that an average individual unskilled in classroom management would be less efficient at teaching a classroom. No one was making that point. BH was clearly speaking about teaching one's own kids about sex at home rather than depending on the state to do it in school.

And the answer to the problem of unwanted teen pregnancies being a such drain on society's resources is simple. End all welfare. They're on their own then. Sounds heartless but you'd be surprised how much more responsible my son acts as I gradually shift the burden of his own care to him. I can't help but believe that most people, when faced with having to provide on their own, will devise ways of doing so for themselves. Ending welfare would not end all societal cost--some people may turn to crime. Some may abandon their kids to avoid having to support them. But ending welfare would certainly reduce the societal net cost by orders of magnitude.

IMHO family dependence on welfare exacerbates the problem of teen pregnancy and disease far more than education can solve it. Progressives like to look upon government to solve all kinds of problems, and then they need even more government to solve the new problems they created.

So a relevant question I think should be asked is, do most unwanted pregnancies come from the least educated demographic, or the most subsidized? Which problem is most efficiently solved? I submit that if you're concerned about the drain on society, that burden is more dramatically reduced by not rewarding dependence, than by continuing to reward dependence and then educating to mitigate the harmful side effects of doing that.

 

[Lowe0]

Nope. The context to which I was referring was indeed YOU teaching your own kids rather than just about what schools are teaching. Maybe you were comparing your teaching skills to the skills of professional educators, in the context of you replacing them in the classroom. If so, WTF? I wouldn't doubt that an average individual unskilled in classroom management would be less efficient at teaching a classroom. No one was making that point.

Steve H was making exactly that point, and he reiterated it in the post above yours.

 

[jamil]

Steve H was making exactly that point, and he reiterated it in the post above yours.

Well, thank you for pointing that out. We are all better off knowing that Steve posted his while I was still composing mine. And thank you Steve for "pre-iterating" my reiteration of what you said before I reiterated it without knowing what you "pre-iterated". I feel blessed to have participated in that in some small way even if after the fact.