We are trying to back away from the bill passed last year that we feel mandated sex ed that was too nonjudgmental
Note the problem: "Too nonjudgmental."
Heaven forbid we should teach our children to be at ease with their sexuality. No, we have to judge and shame them so that they don't become "deviants."
You know...gay.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
We were given instruction on how sex was carried out but we were not taught about any of the emotional, social or cultural baggage that came with it.
Although in the early eighties in a small village in Oxfordshire the socio-cultural landscape was very WASP.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
Believe it or not we were taught with graphic examples of chickens.
After trying it at home my cloaca didn't half hurt.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
I mean... abstinence is, afterall, more effective than any other form of contraceptive available.
Abstaining is more effective, yes.
What you've said would be the truth, but teaching that abstinence is the only effective means would not be teaching the truth.
In fact, all that would be necessary to accomplish what you are suggesting is to teach that all contraceptive methods have failure rates. I would also suggest that attempts by teens to practice abstinence also have failure rates.
But, then again, like I said: I haven't read the actual bill,
You commented that you did not see any problems based on the post about the article, so it is fair to criticize your statement on that basis.
Otherwise, what was the point of your saying anything at all, if you did not form your opinion based on what was posted and you have not read the article.
What you've said would be the truth, but teaching that abstinence is the only effective means would not be teaching the truth.
But they aren't teaching abstinence only; as the article said:
quote:Wisconsin Senators Pass Controversial Bill Pushing Abstinence Over Contraception in Sex Ed from Fox News:
A state law was passed last year by Democrats, requiring schools that offer sex education to include information on contraception methods.
Otherwise, what was the point of your saying anything at all, if you did not form your opinion based on what was posted and you have not read the article.
I did read the article. I just haven't read the actual bill. News stories often misrepresent key details of stories, but since the OP was started based on the article, I'm willing to base my posts on that for now.
A state law was passed last year by Democrats, requiring schools that offer sex education to include information on contraception methods.
That's the existing law Jon passed by Dems, and not the current bill under discussion here. I agree the that current law seems okay.
Here is the language from the article that describes the bill we are talking about. (Emphasis added by me.)
quote:The new GOP-backed legislation would not ban teachers from discussing contraceptives, but would demand they stress abstaining from sex the only reliable way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
But, of course, I was talking about actual abstinence, not attempted abstinence.
The law prescribes, and the OP addresses, public policy.
In your formulation, we could substitute "death" or "impotence" or "sterility", and the result would be equally valid--and, like any tautology, have as little applicability to useful public policy. The law at hand is a tactic to increase the number of schoolkids who receive abstinence-only sex ed.
We know how well policies of abstinence work, even among those taking the most profound religious vows: not as well as the most failure-prone method of contraception.
All proponents of abstinence-only sex ed should practice actual abstinence. The situation would improve in just a few decades.
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
™ Version 4.2
(1)