Interestingly, though I agree, sex ed wasn't really bad in my school. Think it was in fifth grade. Could be pushed later, but I don't think understanding the differences of anatomy is a bad thing to teach at a certain age.
But I hear the sex ed classes of today are disgusting and repugnant, full of actual sexual instructions, teaching kids to touch themselves -- from a very early age -- and seemingly encouraging them to touch each other too.
So with my former point said, the latter point proves that the slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy at all, but an easy prediction to make based on past and current events
Depends upon the school: sex ed. is pretty tame around here and begins in 8th grade with the "this is how babies are made; don't do it! ps. stranger danger!". In high school they get into "these are STDs; don't have sex, but if you do wear protection...but you still shouldn't do it or you might get an STD; ps. stranger danger!".
Admittedly, I live in a very rural area -- we're not as 'sophisticated' as the urban areas.
Some of the local progressives are trying to change that...thus far it hasn't worked because the locals would likely burn down the school if it did.
So it sounds like we had a similar experience overall (I'm suburbs) except mine was earlier. Mine didn't at all increase my likelihood of young sex, and probably actually swayed me against it -- and even if I wanted to, imagine buying a condom and hiding it from parents.
And I think that's ultimately where we went wrong here. I feel like they stopped teaching about STDs and started encouraging recreational sex as the focus, giving away free condoms without telling the parents, etc.
Honestly when I had sex ed it was like they just wanted to bring up the topic of sex to make sure that the kids that weren't already thinking about it, were now thinking about it. Once you break a kids innocence there's no going back. Kids develop at different ages and it shouldn't be up to the school to decide what year children should start thinking about sex. There is absolutely no reason a parent can't teach their kids about sex. Plus we have google now and kids are just going to look it up for themselves regardless. Its not like 50 years ago where you couldn't even have a phone conversation without your overbearing mother listening in on the other room. Some of these teachers get arrested for trying to touch their students and I dont want a stranger teaching my kids about sex. Especially nowadays they're trying to get fags and pedophiles hired in schools. We dont need them telling our kids it's ok to jerk each other off at 8 years old.
We didn’t stop them when the perverts introduced sex Ed, then made it mandatory.
Had we stopped them, then, we would not be here, today.
Interestingly, though I agree, sex ed wasn't really bad in my school. Think it was in fifth grade. Could be pushed later, but I don't think understanding the differences of anatomy is a bad thing to teach at a certain age.
But I hear the sex ed classes of today are disgusting and repugnant, full of actual sexual instructions, teaching kids to touch themselves -- from a very early age -- and seemingly encouraging them to touch each other too.
So with my former point said, the latter point proves that the slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy at all, but an easy prediction to make based on past and current events
My SexEd was in 7th grade. But that was nearly 30 years ago. Looks like they have only started it earlier and made it more degenerate. Horrible.
I was a freshman in college before any sex ed.
My sex ed in school was the girls being separated from the boys and learning about menstruation.
I don't recall if we were separated, I just know that we weren't really shown like..literal pornography like apparently they do today
I remember being separated too, and learning about periods. Might have been in 5th grade.
Depends upon the school: sex ed. is pretty tame around here and begins in 8th grade with the "this is how babies are made; don't do it! ps. stranger danger!". In high school they get into "these are STDs; don't have sex, but if you do wear protection...but you still shouldn't do it or you might get an STD; ps. stranger danger!". Admittedly, I live in a very rural area -- we're not as 'sophisticated' as the urban areas.
Some of the local progressives are trying to change that...thus far it hasn't worked because the locals would likely burn down the school if it did.
So it sounds like we had a similar experience overall (I'm suburbs) except mine was earlier. Mine didn't at all increase my likelihood of young sex, and probably actually swayed me against it -- and even if I wanted to, imagine buying a condom and hiding it from parents.
And I think that's ultimately where we went wrong here. I feel like they stopped teaching about STDs and started encouraging recreational sex as the focus, giving away free condoms without telling the parents, etc.
Honestly when I had sex ed it was like they just wanted to bring up the topic of sex to make sure that the kids that weren't already thinking about it, were now thinking about it. Once you break a kids innocence there's no going back. Kids develop at different ages and it shouldn't be up to the school to decide what year children should start thinking about sex. There is absolutely no reason a parent can't teach their kids about sex. Plus we have google now and kids are just going to look it up for themselves regardless. Its not like 50 years ago where you couldn't even have a phone conversation without your overbearing mother listening in on the other room. Some of these teachers get arrested for trying to touch their students and I dont want a stranger teaching my kids about sex. Especially nowadays they're trying to get fags and pedophiles hired in schools. We dont need them telling our kids it's ok to jerk each other off at 8 years old.
What do they teach in sex ed that they wouldn't learn in biology?