From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:54:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.051213.865@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.024744.6464@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>
>>One thing that bothers me is:
>>  Why is the school, esp. Public schools the one doing the sex ed, and not
>>the family where the primary education should be.   
>
>I don't know why families are ignoring there responsibilities, but removing
>sex ed from schools will not fix that problem, it will just result in more
>teen pregnancy and more AIDS deaths.

How do you know that?  Maybe parents and children will talk more and
communicate.  When the school becomes the primary educator of our children,
then what use are parents?  Are our parents merely a cross between a
baby maker and an ATM machine?

In terms of feminism, one of the complaints is that women just become 
"baby-factories."  In a sense, perhaps letting our public school system
form our children instead of us, dehumanizes us.  

Let us 'humanize' our society now.

>
>>  Sex ed today is like teaching kids how to have sex without getting caught.
>
>Sex ed is like drivers ed, if your going to take the risk of driving or
>having sex you had better know what your doing...
>
>>  But happens when they do "get caught?"  
>
>Why don't I ever hear this argument used against drivers ed? After all
>if we didn't teach our kids to drive they wouldn't have accident.... RIGHT..
>

But if something could be prevented reasonably, wouldn't you take those steps?

And when teenagers today take driver's education, don't you see the 
anticipation in their faces?  They do want to drive.  They take steps
like getting learner's permits, and finally, after passing the test, they
get a license.

Now when we have sex ed, don't some of those in there have a sense of 
anticipation?  Some of them want to have sex but want to find ways not
to "get caught."  And in addition, they don't have to get learner's
permits (unless you want to propose setting up sex shops where
our children can practice).  And when they finally finish sex ed,
why don't they get a license to have sex?  (Unless of course, you have
government set up a sex licensing center.  If you have sex without a license
you could be fined.  If you have an 'accident' while having sex, then you
may have to pay either the victim, support the victim, or whatever.  Of
course, you may want to purchase AIDS insurance.  If you get AIDS while 
having sex, you may use that insurance to help pay for your recovery.
But of course, would the insurance companies go for this idea?  Perhaps
but the rates would be tremendously high if you continue to do high risk
activity.  For virgins, non-drug users etc, the premium would almost be
free.)

>>   We don't need public schools to confuse our children even more.
>>
>>   Leave the role of the primary sex educator to the family, and not
>>government.
>
>That simply hasn't worked, I think there are something like 1 million
>teen pregnancies a year. "Family values" hasn't stopped kids from having
>sex, but education can atleast give them the knowledge to do it safely.
>
Education, yes.  But let it not be done by the public school system but
family and perhaps some private organization which the family can choose
to send their children to as a SUPPLEMENT.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4115 alt.politics.elections:12453