Submitted by News_Puppy t3_xwlj8o in Connecticut
Connecticut tries to say it's a leader on reproductive rights, but the state doesn't even mandate sex ed in public schools. Shouldn't we be giving our kids the knowledge to keep themselves healthy?
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/reproductive-rights-why-dont-we-talk-about-sex/id1613549586?i=1000581652308
Can confirm. Went to both a city school as well as a school in the suburbs and was given sex-ed at both.
We should definitely have better sex ed classes that go beyond one session talking about how genitals work in the most basic sense. Studies show that continued sex ed lowers unwanted pregnancy and sti rates. Total no brainer. There’s still an old world taboo surrounding sex but I think we’re finally shedding those baby boom era ideas
Yup. They should add relationship education to the mix. Talking about consent and body safety can start in kindergarten. Talking about puberty and body changes should really start in 3rd or 4th grade and add each year. Sex, masturbation, STIs, pregnancy, etc. LGBTQ+ things should be covered. And special Ed students should also be taught sex education.
[deleted]
Sex ED has always been mandatory in schools, not sure when this changed. Unless the complaint is they aren’t going on about birth control or gender preferences.
I think so many schools teach it anyways that the state probably doesn’t see the benefits of taking time to mandate it
I call BS!
3 of our 4 kids have had a great education overall in the NW portion of the state (1 is a bit young still) and with that well rounded sex and overall health classes. While the state may not MANDATE it the local schools do a decent job of covering the subject.
Hell when I went to school in BPT back in the 90s we had a fairly decent sex/health class. Albeit it was only 1 semester back then, it's quite a bit more exhaustive now.
My first sex Ed class was in 5th grade and my middle school health classes introduced more in depth on the health side of it. In high school, while entirely hetero focused, went more in depth into anatomy. Sure, the earlier classes could have been more informative (we were coming into the age of puberty, and there was not enough focus on the coming changes and arguably too much focus on the fact that periods exist, tampons are scary, etc since we were divided by sex for the early classs) but it was definitely talked about.
This would be 2005-2012.
CT does have sex Ed classes. We don’t teach kindergarteners anal like they tried to in FL. But we learned about the birds and the bees.
Problem is. They try to teach our kids sex Ed. But the conservative airheads cry foul and call it grooming our kids and sexualizing our kids....
You have the parents who swear their kids are too young for talk about this subject.
...and that isn't thier choice?
No, it’s not.
Considering you are saying a parent doesn't have the ability to decide what, where and how a conversation can be discussed can you explain why?
Because parents in general can’t be trusted with teaching their kids this information in a safe, rational, or well informed manner, sure their are exceptions to the rule, however its reasons like these why we have schools to teach kids in the first place. And frankly when it comes to a subject that can have a very real, and often detrimental impact on society, a la, teaching kids about their bodies, puberty, sex, sexuality, safe sex, STI and pregnancy prevention.. most rational people would rather that be put in the hands of people trained to instruct children, who are informed on the material.
This is all strictly opinion though, is it not? And before all this gets taken out of context or considered and argument for or against and point of view on the topic of sex, it isn't. That statement won't help but I'll continue in hopes of a rational conversation.
>safe, rational, or well informed manner,
There are obviously people who would, and have argued the same from the opposite end of the spectrum. They don't consider governement employees to be the appropriate vessel for these conversations.
>And frankly when it comes to a subject that can have a very real, and often detrimental impact on society,
Okay. If we were to grant the argument that this subject does have detrimental impacts on society (if not taught "properly") and should be taught solely by government funded and ran school systems, where do you draw the line? It can be argued that any subject you choose can have detrimental impacts on society. Who gets to decide how anything else is taught? Parents at school boards? The governement? If you choose governement I'd be cautious as administrations and cultural opinions can change rapidly.
>most rational people would rather that be put in the hands of people trained to instruct children
That's a fairly unsubstantiated claim. I don't think it's irrational to have control, or at least a say in your own child's education and how/when it is received. The unfortunate reality is most people cannot afford or accommodate alternatives to public education. Record low public school enrollment and increase in homeschooling co-ops nation wide seems to indicate the opposite.
My overall point here is that it appears your willing to eliminate the rights of a family, and the control parents have of thier minors because you disagree with them. If you want to teach your children about sex, gender, etc at 6 months old, that's your prerogative. I may or may not agree with that, it doesn't matter, you have the right to do in your home as you please. I absolutely would argue the same for the opposite. The people who have reservations or disapprove of sexual education in schools have no right to complainant what others do in the home. We are talking about a publicly funded institution, that absolutely should be staying neutral on topics that are in wide disagreement amoung the population.
>There are obviously people who would, and have argued the same from the opposite end of the spectrum. They don't consider governement employees to be the appropriate vessel for these conversations.
Yes there are also people who dispute the moon landing and think all manner of nonsense.. case in point look at the recent public response to covid, and how a certain segment (a sizable one at that) disputed how a basic vaccine works, I’m sorry, when my tax dollars will go to taking care of their grandchild, because they failed to teach thier child about safe sex, because they wanted to teach them that a abstinence in the eyes of a magic sky daddy, or some other nonsensical horse shit is all they need… yah no, standardized education. Also to believe that the government can’t do anything right is such a fucking myth perpetuated by conservatives since for ever now, that really needs to die.
>Okay. If we were to grant the argument that this subject does have detrimental impacts on society (if not taught "properly") and should be taught solely by government funded and ran school systems, where do you draw the line? It can be argued that any subject you choose can have detrimental impacts on society. Who gets to decide how anything else is taught? Parents at school boards? The governement? If you choose governement I'd be cautious as administrations and cultural opinions can change rapidly.
Well this is why we have federal Board of Ed, that dictates subject matter in a general sense, then in turn pushes it out to state boards of Ed to develop their own curriculums, allowing them to take a multitude of local/regional factors into consideration while developing their curriculums, and tailoring it for their communities needs. The line would be what those local/regional boards of Ed’s would deam reasonable.. while not perfect it’s far better than dumping the responsibility off onto parents who are in most cases ill equipped to handle.
>That's a fairly unsubstantiated claim. I don't think it's irrational to have control, or at least a say in your own child's education and how/when it is received. The unfortunate reality is most people cannot afford or accommodate alternatives to public education. Record low public school enrollment and increase in homeschooling co-ops nation wide seems to indicate the opposite.
Well this is why things like the PTA exist, as well as options like home school, if you feel you can do a better job at instructing your children go for it, furthermore you can easily get your chilled excused from lessons of the nature, so it’s not a huge deal.. why you would want to control what a kid learns, especially for something like this is beyond me, and only leads me to speculation of your intentions here.
>My overall point here is that it appears your willing to eliminate the rights of a family, and the control parents have of thier minors because you disagree with them. If you want to teach your children about sex, gender, etc at 6 months old, that's your prerogative. I may or may not agree with that, it doesn't matter, you have the right to do in your home as you please. I absolutely would argue the same for the opposite. The people who have reservations or disapprove of sexual education in schools have no right to complainant what others do in the home. We are talking about a publicly funded institution, that absolutely should be staying neutral on topics that are in wide disagreement amoung the population.
I’m not eliminating the rights of the family, you can teach your crotch goblins what ever the fuck make believe dumb shit you want in your own free time.. won’t stop you, however when you take my tax money and have them sit in my school, they are going to be taught in a manner that our society deems as what is a needed education for saud society. Yes let’s teach children these things so they grow up healthy, knowing things about their own, and others bodies. It’s good for them and society as a whole that they receive these lessons in a school and not from opinionated/biased, ill informed, often uneducated family members.
>Yes there are also people who dispute the moon landing and think all manner of nonsense.. case in point look at the recent public response to covid, and how a certain segment (a sizable one at that) disputed how a basic vaccine works,
So we're supposed to remove parents rights as a whole because crazy people exist? I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. It is possible to believe the fact the moon landing happened AND want to retain control of your child's education.
>I’m sorry, when my tax dollars will go to taking care of their grandchild, because they failed to teach thier child about safe sex, because they wanted to teach them that a abstinence in the eyes of a magic sky daddy, or some other nonsensical horse shit is all they need… yah no,
And yet our tax dollars fund health care for the morbidly obese and drug abuse and yet at least one of those things is being spun as a positive life style when it's objectively unhealthy. This is part of the argument against nationalized Healthcare, not just that the governement is "bad at everything". You open the door for the ability to restrict people's basic rights in the name of "my tax dollars".
>fucking myth perpetuated by conservatives since for ever now, that really needs to die.**
Well, that's more so a libertarian view than a conservative one, although the line has been picked up within conservatism in some circles. For instance someone who isn't a through and through libertarian could still be conservative but concede things such as public service departments (police, fire, ems, and yes education) are needed and provide a net positive to society.
>. while not perfect it’s far better than dumping the responsibility off onto parents who are in most cases ill equipped to handle.
While it is reasonable to believe the so called experts are more equipped to teach, it doesn't mean they are more equipped to decide what is taught.
>The line would be what those local/regional boards of Ed’s would deam reasonable
The board of Ed is usually selected by vote by the community. If they aren't listening to what the community wants then they should be removed. It's the same point with an extra layer of the community, and yes, the parents, being able to decide what's in thier child's school.
>however when you take my tax money and have them sit in my school, they are going to be taught in a manner that our society deems as what is a needed education.
The problem with your thought here is that it isn't YOUR school. You are not the only one funding it. There are other people who have different beliefs than you and are also funding it. Our society deeming something as needed education is in fact an opinion, more so your opinion right now. Part of being in a civilized society is living with those that don't agree with you. Judging by your tone in an otherwise civil discussion, it seems this is a point that needs reiterating.
>It’s good for them and society as a whole that they receive these lessons in a school and not from opinionated/biased,
The lessons themselves are opinionated. People are allowed to practice religious beliefs and pass those onto thier families, despite the fact you don't like it. That includes thibgs that are taught as safe sex practices. I dont necessarily agree with all those viewpoints, but I understand it's fundamental to the existence of a free country.
>I’m not eliminating the rights of the family, you can teach your crotch goblins what ever the fuck make believe dumb shit you want in your own free time
If parents can't choose what's going on in thier schools that they also pay for how is that the removal of rights? Unless of course you're suggesting we should not mandate the funding for non use of the education system?
>So we're supposed to remove parents rights as a whole because crazy people exist? I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. It is possible to believe the fact the moon landing happened AND want to retain control of your child's education.
Its not removing parental rights.. you are confused here, the parents like I stated before have the right to pull their kids from classes and send them to a private school of thier choosing, home school them, or have them excused from the class at their own kids detriment. It’s indeed a strong argument because we have a segment of the population who as of late has taken a very anti intellectualism stance. Well at least this is what their leaders and media is telling them they should believe. It’s easy to see why, uneducated masses are easier to control, than those who are educated. Furthermore education is one of the easiest ways to improve ones socioeconomic status, and it creates more competition for the“elites” of our society, as well an educated society start to challenge those ruling classes, especially the status quo that they handed down to the lower classes to accept.
>And yet our tax dollars fund health care for the morbidly obese and drug abuse and yet at least one of those things is being spun as a positive life style when it's objectively unhealthy. This is part of the argument against nationalized Healthcare, not just that the governement is "bad at everything". You open the door for the ability to restrict people's basic rights in the name of "my tax dollars".
Yes let’s act like 1. Health classe and PE aren’t a thing.. or 2. That some problems take more than education to fix. Like you can tell folks all day till you are blue in the face that garbage food is bad for you.. but when they live in food deserts, or the price of healthier options makes those options unreasonable.. well then garbage is better than starvation. N addition there are some people due to genetic factors that really can’t control how they look, as well seeing how the vast majority of Americans are obese, probably not healthy to stigmatize being overweight. And when it comes to how tax dollars are spent, you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Will they get everything right 100% of the time, no, will mistakes be made, yes, should this paralyze us into inaction, or show that the government is ill equipped to handle things they have been doing for over a century now, absolutely not.
>Well, that's more so a libertarian view than a conservative one, although the line has been picked up within conservatism in some circles. For instance someone who isn't a through and through libertarian could still be conservative but concede things such as public service departments (police, fire, ems, and yes education) are needed and provide a net positive to society.
Libertarians are just edgy republicans, who want to have all the same stupid economic policy, and anti regulatory horse shit but also want to cast off all the social hang ups that come with being a conservative so they can smoke weed. Personally, I think they are the worst.
>>For instance someone who isn't a through and through libertarian could still be conservative but concede things such as public service departments (police, fire, ems, and yes education) are needed and provide a net positive to society.
This person wouldn’t be a libertarian.. or a good one at that then.
>While it is reasonable to believe the so called experts are more equipped to teach, it doesn't mean they are more equipped to decide what is taught.
How so? And like individual parents are?!
>The board of Ed is usually selected by vote by the community. If they aren't listening to what the community wants then they should be removed. It's the same point with an extra layer of the community, and yes, the parents, being able to decide what's in thier child's school.
I mean why do you hate democracy then? Like literally you just explained the beauty of the system. Parents can always decide what’s best for their children, like I said now there are a multitude of alternatives for people to fuck up their kids on their own.
>The problem with your thought here is that it isn't YOUR school. You are not the only one funding it. There are other people who have different beliefs than you and are also funding it. Our society deeming something as needed education is in fact an opinion, more so your opinion right now. Part of being in a civilized society is living with those that don't agree with you. Judging by your tone in an otherwise civil discussion, it seems this is a point that needs reiterating.
OK… then get together with other like minded folks, and try and influence the system then, if there’s enough of you, you can take on the burden of deeming what’s fit for our children to learn.. if not, welp, hate to tell ya democracy is sort of a majority rule thing, for better or worse. I’m civil it’s just annoying as fuck when people get bent out of shape for the stupidest of thing.. who honestly cares kids are learning this, what puritanical nonesense would lead one to believe it’s not healthy for kids to understand the basics about these things?
>The lessons themselves are opinionated. People are allowed to practice religious beliefs and pass those onto thier families, despite the fact you don't like it. That includes thibgs that are taught as safe sex practices. I dont necessarily agree with all those viewpoints, but I understand it's fundamental to the existence of a free country.
How is it opinionated? Please explain how teaching kids this stuff is open to opinion? Also aren’t saying nope this isn’t right also an opinion? I don’t give a shit if you want to teach your kids pre medieval theology or that the earth is the center of the universe, that’s up to you, but if your children are going to go to a publicly funded institution of learning they are going to receive lessons on what society has deemed as necessary and appropriate. What they or you do with that information after the fact is up to you and them.
>If parents can't choose what's going on in thier schools that they also pay for how is that the removal of rights? Unless of course you're suggesting we should not mandate the funding for non use of the education system?
If a majority of parents have a problem with it they can change it… until such time, this isn’t a minority rule thing. Our children shouldn’t be denied a well rounded education cause YOU have hang ups around sexs. Nah, tax money should go to public institutions if you don’t like that send your kids to private school on your own dime, or educated them at home.
>pull their kids from classes and send them to a private school of thier choosing, home school them, or have them excused from the class
Which is extremely difficult, if not impossible for the majority of lower to middle class homes, considering the majority of property taxes they pay (with homeownership) go the education system. If that money was freed for the ones who opt out this might actually be a valid option.
>at their own kids detriment
The problem that persists in all your responses is that your stating your opinion as fact. I'm trying to come from a neutral standpoint here and simply explain the other side of the argument without personal feelings on the issue.
>taken a very anti intellectualism stance.
I will assume your pointing to the vaccine debate as stated in your last reply. To that (and applied to other topics) there has been a seriously misguided conflating of a multitude of opinions. People having hesitancy on a rapidly deployed, new vaccine for a new virus isn't anti intellectual. There are plenty of opinions and concerns that lie in the middle of "take every shit available without question" and "vaccines bad and have nanochips (or insert some other conspiracy theory)" that are perfectly valid and are side lined as extreme. Using this as an example as why parents should support sex education because they clearly aren't smart enough is flawed at the most basic level of debate.
>Furthermore education is one of the easiest ways to improve ones socioeconomic status, and it creates more competition for the“elites” of our society, as well an educated society start to challenge those ruling classes, especially the status quo that they handed down to the lower classes to accept.
I don't disagree. There are more ways than one to skin a cat, however.
>Yes let’s act like 1. Health classe and PE aren’t a thing.. or 2. That some problems take more than education to fix. Like you can tell folks all day till you are blue in the face that garbage food is bad for you.. but when they live in food deserts, or the price of healthier options makes those options unreasonable.. well then garbage is better than starvation
Not disagreeing here either. I'm so not going to pretend that the vast majority of overweight people are in the circumstances you mentioned. It still is an example of personal decisions that effect society as a whole.
>Will they get everything right 100% of the time, no, will mistakes be made, yes, should this paralyze us into inaction, or show that the government is ill equipped to handle things they have been doing for over a century now, absolutely not.
Again I agree but I was responding to (like above) your notion that public education should be dictated for the benefit of all. The argument that the door is opened to potentially non beneficial things still holds.
>Libertarians are just edgy republicans
Well, no.
>. Personally, I think they are the worst.
Yes. I personally think it's a very immature, poorly thought out political stand point.
>This person wouldn’t be a libertarian.. or a good one at that then
Yes, that was point, you were conflating the two in previous replies and again in this one as "edgy" Republicans.
>How so? And like individual parents are?!
Yes. Although there are some parents that are bad, you don't remove the ability of the whole to decide for thier own children what they are taught. The higher education system that has made educators "experts" provide them with a frankly one sided, bias view of the world. It is far from a secret that college professors are predominantly liberal and very few hold any conservative view points. This has been well documented. Not including the shutting down of conservative speakers deemed intolerable in the exact places that used to claim were the safe haven of free thought and expression.
>I mean why do you hate democracy then? Like literally you just explained the beauty of the system. Parents can always decide what’s best for their children, like I said now there are a multitude of alternatives for people to fuck up their kids on their own.
I dont...I understand what I explained. My point is if the system is working, why is there a complaint about the supposed lack of sex education in public school. If the point is to appeal to the parents that don't support it, then I would argue you're going about it in the absolute wrong way.
>’m civil it’s just annoying as fuck
Well I'd argue your not. You've castigated entire religious communities and denigrated any other views point other than your own.
>How is it opinionated? Please explain how teaching kids this stuff is open to opinion? Also aren’t saying nope this isn’t right also an opinion? I don’t give a shit if you want to teach your kids pre medieval theology or that the earth is the center of the universe, that’s up to you, but if your children are going to go to a publicly funded institution of learning they are going to receive lessons on what society has deemed as necessary and appropriate. What they or you do with that information after the fact is up to you and them
I've said the purely biological points in the matter are fine, I think most of the concern has been derived from the inclusion of gender theory including but not limited to the addition of texts that are sexual explicit. Although this may not be 100% of the schools systems it is completely reasonable to not want the topic discussed by the public education system if these things are a possibility.
>If a majority of parents have a problem with it they can change it… until such time, this isn’t a minority rule thing. Our children shouldn’t be denied a well rounded education cause YOU have hang ups around sexs. Nah, tax money should go to public institutions if you don’t like that send your kids to private school on your own dime, or educated them at home.
Well if we are lacking sex education in the classroom as the OP suggests I'd say this isn't a minority rule thing. Also, sending my kids to a private institution doesn't prevent tax dollars going to the public system. The same argument can be made in the reverse. If you want the subject taught how you want, then you can teach it at home. No one is denying you any education.
Question was “why don’t schools teach this” and I answered. Do you not read ?
Was that not a statement with the implication that the kids are NOT to young for the conversation. I'm operating off the assumption that this was your point...that parents incorrectly think thier kids are too young for the conversation. If that's not the case, I apologize for the assumption. If my assumption is correct, I'm simply asking for you to elaborate.
> NOT to young
*too
Learn the difference here.
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply !optout to this comment.)
[deleted]
No clue why you would want the school to teach your children about sex instead of you, as the parent............That being said they do it anyways already.
Maybe because some kids have shitty parents who won't be bothered?
It should absolutely be mandated for kids to learn about sex and how to prevent unwanted pregnancy or STDs as well as options on how to handle an unwanted pregnancy.
Personally my parents never said a word to me about sex my entire life, I am glad that sex ex was taught in school.
first of all, it's a hell of a lot more important than probably 75% of what these kids are taught today. secondly, it's not my kids i'm worried about. third, most parents i've encountered that parrot the type of shit you just wrote are the ones with kids i have to warn my kids about.
This is all totally fine for you to want for your kids. No one should be able to change any of this....but the same goes for the kids you're referencing. Thier parents have the right to teach then how and what they want. It doesn't go one way, that's not a free society, that's you forcing your way upon others
Most parents aren't health/biology experts.
>No clue why you would want the school to teach your children
I want the school to teach my children about sex because they're the one's that went to school to learn how to teach my kids stuff.
You can't teach them about a basic biological function because you didn't go to school for it?
Sure, I could. I could home school them too, but I send them to school to be taught by professionals.
Sure, i see you're point. I don't agree with it completely but I'll afford you the point regardless. At least in terms of all other school subjects. We're talking about sex education. I think we have a huge problem as a society I'd we can't teach our own kids about a simple biological function without the help of a professional.
I agree that there's a problem if we can't teach our own kids about that. I also think it's a problem if parents don't read to their kids and can't teach them basic math. But like all the subjects, I think that the conversation should continue at home and be talked about more at home, but I still think the schools should teach it as well.
Basic biology I see no issue with, I think the point if contention is how the subject is being taught. I'm not pointing to anything specific here but I can understand concerns from parents that see issue with the way some of these subjects are presented in the public sphere, especially of a tax payer funded institution.
Again though, I have problems with the way math is being taught too, but I think that's a bigger issue. It's one thing to not like the way something is taught, but it's another to say they shouldn't teach it at all.
Fair, but I think it's an argument of what some parents consider to be a private subject. Maybe at least worth the discussion that it should be the decision of the taxpayers funding a municipality to decide, further , if it is decided to be taught, how and what within the subject is taught. I'll make no argument that people that went to school to teach are better at teaching but that doesn't make them absolute authorities over WHAT is being taught, especially to the point where thier opinions on a subject supercede the will of the actual parents.
Well the teachers aren't the ones deciding what's taught though. That's up to the school board I believe. Which is either elected or appointments by an elected official, so we do sort of indirectly control what's taught. But it's certainly worth the discussion.
This is absolutely correct, we do indirectly control it. I only take issue with the notion a subject such as this is mandated by a district. If I understand the sentiment of the OP, it's a call to mandate such education instead of maybe an appeal to the parents/community to request such change. If I'm wrong about the intent, which I very well may be, than there's absolutely no issue with the discussion.
By 4th grade talking about preventing the spread of aids?
By 8th grade talk about abstinence and choosing to abstain after sexual activity. WTF strange 180 here.
Because schools would teach without biases? As in, they would teach about safe sex and contraceptive use as opposed to just abstinence (which has been proven ineffective. States which emphasize abstinence have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country).
They also have better education regarding human biology and wouldn’t spread as much misinformation in compared to parents who are uneducated/misinformed with outdated facts.
This would also ensure that children with parents who are too uncomfortable to have “the talk” (mine were like this) still have the opportunity to learn about sex education with a trusted adult.
You're on reddit...the CT sub reddit. Mommy state has it all covered, don't you worry. Here in CT we like to force our will on those who don't agree with us via the state and claim it as virtue.
Why not? Our schools feed kids.
No, this is a disguised republican state.
Actual education funding isn’t allowed.
Our children must learn in the sweltering heat and freezing winters.
The freezing winters? What schools don’t have heat?
So you admit none of our schools have air conditioning. 👀
Guilty as charged
Why say freezing winters then as part of your ridiculous argument then if you’re only response is to make some ill conceived gotcha comment if someone mentions that?
Most schools do not have AC, but there are only a few days every year when temps are hot enough to be uncomfortable during the school calendar. Obviously I would prefer AC if I was a student or faculty member but it would be incredibly expensive to install the ductwork for that when the school buildings were not built to handle central air (assuming it’s not a school built recently).
Garizondyly t1_ir7nhj2 wrote
Uh what? CT schools do talk about sex ed. i had sex ed/health classes throughout middle school and at least as a freshman/soph in HS. Indeed, we even had some sex ed days in 4th and 5th grade (we watched some VHS videos about puberty... better than nothing). Maybe this is coming from a suburban school perspective but id imagine the majority of districts adhere to these guidelines.