by Alex Birch
People know that I am against sex education in school. To me it's simple: sexuality and sexual values should be taught to children by parents and their communal culture, not by public messengers of the government. The rest is up to individuals when they're experimenting in their teens. The biological aspect of sexuality should be taught in biology class based on scientific facts, but there shouldn't be any lessons concerning values, politics or lifestyle based upon those facts.
What happens when the government teaches our children about sexuality? They indoctrinate them with whatever ideological trend is popular at the moment. In Sweden it's been ultra-liberalism since the late 60's. It's a fact that gay and queer lobby groups are co-writing the biology books to suit their propaganda. Our teachers even hand out condoms from those lobby groups in class. And you say public education is not politically biased? When I went through sex education in school, I learned the following:
Read carefully: I'm not saying either of these suggestions are right or wrong. I'm saying it shouldn't be up to our education system to teach our children about them. Just as I teach my children certain values, certain lifestyle choices, certain moral behavior and certain cultural ideals, I have the right to be a dominant influence in how they perceive sexuality. I don't trust teachers or politicians to ensure that my future daughter avoids whoring like her friends and my future boy avoids ending up paying alimony to some dumb lay he screwed over when he was drunk.
Most young people, especially teenagers, are not capable of thinking for themselves or withstanding peer and teacher pressure. If an authority they trust say heterosexuality is oppressive or that whoring is good, they're gonna buy it. I remember gay lobby groups coming to college and trying to persuade us to convert to liberal sexuality. Most of my friends were brought up traditionally; they called the teacher a fag and ran him out. Some were immigrants and were taught to not even accept homosexuality.
Critics will say there are Christian families who profess extreme forms of chastity, or extremists who rally against homosexuals. So? Let them do it. Who are you, or the government, to say what they ought to teach their children? If the attitudes have no place in society as a whole, or if they're simply not in line with reality, chances are the children will grow up to dismiss them later on. Either way it's not any central power's job to babysit parents nor their children about this. The government's incapable of being unbiased on these issues, and regardless if what it teaches ought to be perceived as "good," it's brainwashing and has no place in public education.
Parents and community can not
Parents and community can not be trusted to teach kids about sex properly. Sex Ed at school has seen drops in teen pregnancy and teen STD transference. Telling kids about condoms does not promote them to have sex, as they will have sex either way. That's why they brought it into the classroom to begin with, because too many parents are to unreliable to tell their kids how it works. You can always opt your own kids out of these classes if you want, but then they'd be the weird kid who's not allowed in sex ed with the muslim kids. Besides, sex ed is a fun week when you can laugh at penises and vaginas and boobies and take some of the stress out of the prison style system. You want to fix education, start with it's disciplinary foundations. It should be FUN for kids to learn, and not scary and depressing.
I disagree
During the sex ed period we've also seen a rise in promiscuity, declining heterosexual identity and a new underclass of young, pregnant people without a clue (despite condom propaganda). Liberal victory.
I understand where you're coming from but basically we differ in view:
"That's why they brought it into the classroom to begin with, because too many parents are to unreliable to tell their kids how it works."
1. You'd rather trust teachers and lobby groups to educate your kids. I don't. And if some parents are unreliable, I don't think that's a problem. I don't want to babysit other parents.
2. How it "works"? This is about morals. I don't criticize biology. That's suited for biology class. I question homosexual propaganda, heterosexual propaganda and public officials telling our children how to perceive sexuality. You did read the post, right?
Sure, some schools can choose to have sex ed. As long as there are choices for us who don't want that, which is what I argue for.
maybe more people are
maybe more people are actually just closet gays than we like to think?
I don't disagree with you about number 1, some of us really are capable of raising children, but a lot of people obviously aren't. public school already acts as a babysitter for those kinds of people, which is why so many kids of good parents are held back and get frustrated and ultimately lots of smart kids are getting crappy grades.
as for number 2, sex ed is less about "morals under attack" as FOX news would have people believe, the stuff talked about exists, hell i saw most of that stuff online before even hearing about it in school. it answers questions we may not want to ask our parents. thanks to sex ed, i can comfortably live with what other people are doing in their own homes that doesn't involve me, and i can now understand why some men may like to be sodomized (not that there's anything wrong with that) or why some women like to consume a mans urine. if you think that's wrong and not beautiful i don't know what to tell you.
But...
"It should be FUN for kids to learn, and not scary and depressing."
But that's socialism! gasp!
Capitalism could not survive without obedient workers, I can just imagine the shock once kids hit the real business world of slave driving corporatists for peasant wages.
Woa, calm down there Mao. I
Woa, calm down there Mao. I meant that they could be going outside more, having more open discussion, maybe with comfortable chairs and tables instead of desks. Little things like that.
Commie? It's okay
We have a few Commies reading the site, that's ok, it's just that they're not likely to receive much sympathy here, so they're probably reading for other reasons (?).
But...
Do you think a welfare system could work without obedient workers?
The peasant wages are mostly within the government sphere, which pays lousy and has lousy work benefits.
Alex
The post was meant to be in jest alex, that's the downside of text, they can't hear the tone of voice. The only point of the message was making learning fun sets expectations that the real world can never meet, there will always be work that is going to be boring, hard, depressing, etc.
The real issue comes down to the idea that we baby kids in order for them to "learn" the real issue should be they should be on their own after a certain age, I don't think teacher lead education, nor private schools are the way teach kids, we need to instill auto-didactism as a norm an expectation instead of handholding, and we need to develop repositories and "maps" so kids can do it and learn themselves.
We forget in the end that kids ultimately teach themselves, the teacher can only do so much.
Sex Ed. makes Sex superficial, banal & mechanical
THAT in and of itself encourages promiscuity, which is what it's supposed to do and why Russia booted sex ed. for marriage ed. after the 90s with positive results. Sex is better when it's taboo & mysterious, not flesh & blood Science. Banal Western FOOLS! Pretty sad that you can't even defend your own point of view before these irritating virginoid anonymous retards Alex, proving once again that Wisdom & Intelligence are mutually exclusive when Banality isn't properly conceptualized.
Russia the failure
Haha russia, the failed empire, give me a break, the russian people were the ones who thought communism was the way to go, like we have much to learn from such failures! They are basically an authoritarian state now.
The goal of school
is not to educate, it is to take control of people and attempt to steer the evolution of humanity. Misinformation and media is a part of population control, by hacking human psychology governments and corporations around the world can achieve depopulation by infecting people with delusions that run counter to their best interests, knowing all the while they have no interest in solving "the worlds problems", they create problems to get to their own social engineering objectives - reduced population.
You raise very good points
You raise very good points though, Alex. The only foreseeable time this becomes an issue is when NO point of view, or lesson is raised, like in my household. My parents are minority immigrants who had a pretty naive understanding of sex in the 21st century, and therefore, instead of forbidding me, or imparting any lessons, didn't talk about it. Needless to say, losing my virginity was horrible, but I'm happy I learned about protection thanks to public education.
Though, yes, you are totally right when it comes to the politicization of sexual issues. Just recently, there was some outrage in Toronto over CAMH doing research on some term that was euphemistic for sexual deviations - weird fetishes, pedophilia, etc., and up until recently, lesbianism and homosexuality. It was as if sexual behaviour was exempt from psychological pathologies, which clearly isn't true. Pathologies don't stop at sexuality because the umbrella of liberalism is protecting it.
I agree
I see your points too and believe they should be taken into account. Most parents don't outright teach their children about sexuality anymore. But they have an ability to indirectly teach by the way they way live, how they comment on other people's behavior and values etc. This shapes children more than one thinks.
Remember that NOT talking about something is a form of parenting, too. If your parent's don't talk about sexuality, you'll have to learn about it yourself, maybe by going on the Internet, maybe by simply doing it and then facing consequences. That's the right of both children and parents to do so, I think.