Jump to content
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Recommended Posts

Okay, I'll admit that I'm not the one to say that the RP's Constitution seems a bit f#&ked up, but there it is. I was reading the Star today and one of the editorialist (I think his last name was Sison) had a peice about the fact that Sex Ed can't really be taught here because there is a Constitutional provision that negates it. After I did the proverbial head shake and WTF?, I read the rest of the piece. Apparently, there is a clause somewhere that says that formal education is secondary to the teachings of parents and guardians. Attempts to institute a formal sex ed class country wide was met with contempt at the thought of wasting tax money on something that must be taught at home. (Right, Mom and Dad have nine kids...they are definetky the ones Junior should be listening to.) Many private schools skirt the issue under the pretext of religion or provide abooklet for Mom and Dad to share with the spawn. That must be a comfortable dinner chat.

 

Seriously, who can shed some light on this mystifying use of legalese? If this is true, is there a more important reason to rewrite the Constitution? We already have more mouths than we can feed and abuse the land with consumables and waste for the nearly ninety million who call this beautiful land home. Condoms are not the answer if Junior doesn't know what it's for.

Link to comment
  • 6 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

sex ed is incorporated with the health subject taught in high schools, public and private. you cant really teach overall health if you leave out a vital topic.

 

as far as i know, what was being debated were should sex ed be a single subject? and should it be taught at the primary grade level?

 

single subject, no, as IMHO it would be a waste of time. primary grade level - no, as the teachers in the public schools are very compliant with what the present mayor wants schools to teach. if the mayor is 'pro life', chances are a nun would teach it (yeah right). if the mayor is not 'pro life', chances are he will not be re-elected. erferferf

Link to comment

"The State shall defend:

 

The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them." (Art. XV, Sec. 3) "

 

This is the hook that allows the Church to prevent sexual eduaction from being taught properly in public schools and in many parochial ones. They contend that it is better to have the family teach this than the school. The sex ed curriculum was scrapped recently because there were so many objections to the people who developed it...the Church wanted it to be less physical and focus more on abstinence, choice and sin. They wanted any mention of contraception to be omitted and to stress the rhythm method. Finally, they wanted the final version to be approved by their team of 'sexperts' first. That is unbelievable.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Priests and nuns should STOP TEACHING beyond their field of expertise -- SEX!

 

I studied elementary in a private catholic schoof for boys. No sex ed there. I high schooled in a public school. There I got sex-ed as part of BIOLOGY class. Which is ok. No moral issues, just cold scientific facts. STDs, STIs, cures (or non-cures), pregnancy, etc. were discussed. No one got pregnant in our high school. Although, college was a different story for some of my batchmates. :)

Link to comment

i went to a catholic school, my classmates decided to ask the bio teacher on our 2nd year HS about sex ed, she obliged, once she started getting into the terms, the kids started giggling, she promptly stopped and said the we are not mature enough yet and just ask our parents when we get older....

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
Apparently, there is a clause somewhere that says that formal education is secondary to the teachings of parents and guardians.

Yet they teach you how to freaking wash specific kinds of stains on your clothes in the 4th grade. You'd think that home ec stuff should primarily be taught to kids by their parents but of course this clause doesn't apply to that. <_<

 

I've been taught sex ed since the 5th grade. We were taught everything from the biology of it, what you might go through mentally and emotionally if and when you decide to become sexually active, what different forms of contraceptions are available to you, how to use a condom, what STDs you should watch out for, etc. They always begin a lesson by saying that if we want to be sure that we won't get STDs and that we won't get pregnant, abstinence is the best way to go. Then, they talk about OTHER ways to protect yourself IF you decide to have sex.

 

Not discussing sex with kids is not going to stop them from doing it. Talking about it won't cause people who weren't planning on doing it to suddenly decide to give it a try. There's no data to support the claim that condoning teen sex (by recognizing that it could happen) makes it more prevalent BUT there has been data that shows that increased sex ed can cause a significant lowering of the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Edited by 1800donttry
Link to comment
  • 3 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...