gadgetlady

Knock yourself out.

It might not be a bad idea to seek solace with mothers who have been through this, to see what helped them through. Healing will come in time for everyone involved, but the loss of a child is one of the hardest things in life to bear.

Sorry - reading one post at a time. I should have consolidated. Do NOT blame yourself! You've suffered a loss, a death in your family, but it is not your fault. Treasure the love that you have with your husband and your son; it is precious and will help you get through this. I know it's painful, and I'm sorry you are having to go through it, especially without people close to you being nearby :-(

:crying::sad: I'm so sorry for your loss. Take time to grieve -- get off this thread! -- you don't need it right now. I will be praying for you.

:crying: Well said, and well done of the school to notify you. I have heard too many stories where the schools act first and ask permission later. There have literally been condom discussions in kindergarten, which the parents found out about later.

The way I understand the statistics, it failed because it was not used consistently throughout the month in which the mother became pregnant. These same statistical guidelines are used for other methods of pregnancy prevention and the guidelines are the same. If a condom was used inconsistently throughout the month, but it was used during a part of the month, the pregnancy is categorized as a failure of that method of birth control, rather than a non-use during the act in which the mother became pregnant. BTW, this is the same as including statutory rape in rape statistics; it's not an uncommon practice. Read all statistics carefully, because often they don't say what you think they're saying.

You specifically said, "Why are people like you so opposed to kids knowing all about their anatomy and physiology, including their sexual organs? Because you think it's dirty" So no, I didn't mischaracterize.

Then you didn't read, because I said it over and over and over and over again.

:crying: No idea at all what that means.

I agree. What's particularly funny is that I'm being painted as someone who's against sex ed, when all along I've said I believe students should be taught about basic factual information. Anyway, I expect I will continue to be painted as an intolerant narrow-minded religious conservative bigot who believes sex is dirty and no one should do it - so be it. It's to be expected, anyway.

Good sex education doesn't. Crap like that website I posted, IMO, does. I'm not quite sure what you mean about something being my fault -- I don't know what of the above is a "faulty" discussion. In any case, where I've been trying to go with all of this is the issue of content. The presence of sex ed isn't something I've ever disagreed with. The question is how far do you go? What is the job of the schools and what is the job of the parents? Is teaching sexual techniques the job of the schools? Is discussing how to have multiple orgasms the job of the schools? What about sexual positions? etc. etc. etc. Yes, these are pushing the envelope, but the entire question is content, and I have a problem when the content encourages or validates behaviors that aren't in my value system. Teaching about biology and sexual function doesn't affect values; it's simply factual. There is nothing wrong with facts.

I believe the term "improper use" includes the statistic of not using it at all. In other words, if someone doesn't think they can get pregnant that time or they forget to use it or they don't have a spare when it breaks, it's all classified as "improper use". So in the years from the 1960's or the 1970's to when the horrible, evil Bush was in office (when sex ed in schools still happened, BTW), when students were being taught all about everything they need to know, why have teen pregnancy and STD rates skyrocketed? What wasn't being taught? What more do you want kids to know? I personally was taught everything I needed to know, and if I had questions I went to my school nurse.

For the record, yet again, I do believe schools should be teaching factual information about basic biology and sex. It is the job of schools to convey basic educational information to the students. My objection is to subjects and/or methods that encourage sexual activity. That being said, presumably there are a lot of topics that are educational but many would say are either out-of-line or not the appropriate venue for schools. Would you agree that schools should be required to give gun training courses? After all, it's educational, and suppose they don't learn this information at home? Where are they going to get the correct information? What about requiring schools to give information about hair coloring? Or torture methods? Or embalming processes? Or plumbing repair? Yes, I am deliberately being random with the above examples. The point is, there is potentially an educational aspect to everything we discuss in life. Yet there are also both proper and improper venues for which these topics should be discussed and for which they should be required. I do not believe the classroom is the appropriate location for demonstrating how to put on condoms. I do believe it is the appropriate location for teaching students about basic biological functions, educating them about their bodies, and giving basic information about sexuality and how it affects them personally. There is nothing in the list that BJean presented above that I have a problem with!

You think the past 40 years of sex ed has been a rip-roaring success? With all of the STDs and teen pregnancies that we have now? There are rampant STDs in our neighborhoods that were all but wiped out 50 years ago! Where have I ever, ever said I was opposed to kids knowing about their anatomy and physiology? I said I was in favor of factual information being presented in schools. There are facets of it that I am against, as I have said above, but I am 100% in favor of the factual information. And, typically, I am being accused of thinking sex is dirty. Quite the contrary. I think it is an incredible gift and kids should be made aware of just how special it is. Again, because the last 40 years of "just do it if it feels good" education has been so successful.

I told my kids early on that I'm their source of information, and if they hear something from the kids at an activity they attend, who's more likely to have the facts -- the kids or their mom? So my kids are 100% comfortable asking me anything. And they do. In fact, they're 100% comfortable asking my husband anything, too, even if he confesses to me later that he feels a bit awkward when they're talking openly about their periods or their breasts or birth control or whatever. He doesn't show his discomfort in front of them. Anyway, I find it sad that kids would feel more comfortable talking to a stranger than their parents. I'm not naive enough to believe everyone can approach their parents, but wouldn't it be wonderful if instead of relying on outside sources to teach our children about their bodies, we instead took that task upon ourselves?

I don't want my children taught how to put a condom on. If you want yours taught that, then teach it to them. I think when a young man goes out and buys condoms, he's going to look at the box and read the directions. Plus, it's not rocket science. It's not a question of whether the information might be worthwhile to some kids. It's a question of who decides whether and how to provide that information. It's a question of whether it's the government's job to provide condom instructions. And I believe it should be the parents' decision. Which is one of the reasons we homeschool.

You said it wasn't "in practice." It was, in some places. I would rather they not demonstrate the technique for putting on a condom at all. There are directions on the box, and kids can seek advice elsewhere -- even on the internet or in books -- if they need it. They don't need to expose all kids to that visual. Just like they don't need to explain in detail to the boys how to insert a tampon.

I wouldn't want my kids having a visual substitute for an erect penis in their classroom. Again, this is the rub. What's OK for some isn't acceptable to others. Teaching kids sex ed in early elementary, k-3, isn't OK to me. Teaching teens about oral sex, sex techniques, etc. - also not OK for my kids. If you want your kids to learn it, then you can allow it or teach it to them. Basic biology stuff? Sure - that's fine. I don't have a disagreement with anything like that. We had this discussion on another thread a while back, and someone on this board was prompted to call their local school so she could sit in on a class or get a copy of the sex ed curriculum. She was denied the ability to do so, prompting her to wonder precisely what it is they teach. You and I have different values -- and that's fine. I want the ability to monitor what my kids are taught, making sure they are from my perspective and reflect my values. That's my prerogative as a parent.

Are you saying that something which was funded for 7-8 years, as BJean says, wasn't implemented anywhere? Then what was the funding going for?

I am talking about tone. The people who produced these videos are the same people who train the people who go into the classrooms. It's all part of the same organization. It's not an issue for me -- my kids are homeschooled, do have blocks on their computers, and know the facts about sexuality. What I'm saying is that the people who are objecting to what's taught in the schools are objecting to things like this and putting condoms on bananas and discussions of topics that are not appropriate or clinical. Not every parent can be vigilant, so they want to trust what is being taught in the schools doesn't violate their moral code. Right now, they can't trust that.

I was responding to a post of BJean's where she was complaining about abstinence funding under Bush, that it doesn't work, and that he somehow blindsided the American public by funding something that no one agrees with and is a waste of money. I thought you were agreeing with her about it? Maybe not. Anyway, I was just correcting the perception that it doesn't work, because statistically it does have an impact.

Therein lies the problem. I find some of it quite objectionable and not want that "tone" taken while teaching my kids in a "clinical" setting (which is precisely what I'm talking about -- it's not often "clinical"). And believe me, that is the in-classroom tone often taken. I don't know if you watched all of them or not, but some are worse than others. "I didn't spew" and "Let me do me", for example, are not things I would want my kids watching. Your kids -- fine. But not mine. I teach my kids to have respect for sex, not treat it like a joke. I think in general you will find that people who object to sex ed aren't objecting to factual information presented in clinical fashion; they're objecting to crap like this.

Lovely perspective, but it's actually completely false. Both teen pregnancy and abortions decreased under Bush.

The problem is, that's not all that's being taught. Go to Planned Parenthood, Take Care Down There and watch all of the videos. This is a Planned Parenthood website. It's not clinical discussion as you presented above. Yes, kids get this in the hallways and such, but providing it in the classroom legitimizes it. It's out of line. Since the people presenting these topics are human beings with their own agendas, you shouldn't be surprised when you hear of "instructors" who push the envelope in big ways. So clinical, factual information? Absolutely; it should be presented. What people object to is indoctrination.

I don't think she said having a baby is a sin. I believe she was referring to sex outside of marriage as the sin. I could be wrong, but I believe that's what she was getting at.