AMA seeks sex lessons for 10-year-olds

[brendan]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/ama-seeks-sex-lessons-for-10yearolds-20090110-7e1m.html?page=-1

[squance]

The plans come as the British Government prepares to make sex education compulsory in state schools from grade one.

Geez, thats a bit quite early, ain't it?

Topics such as anal sex, mutual masturbation and date rape would be part of the curriculum, and terminology such as "f--k" and "blow job" would be used in classes.

LOL

[Eriny]

I remember there being sex education in grade 3. It was after school hours and parents went with their children. It was just about birthing babies though, I think, nothing particularly explicit.

[hard]

wtf are they fried in the head or what? because it seems that i can't seem to comprehend with the fact that 1 year olds shouldn't be learning foul languages such as "blow job" or "fuck" at such an early and tender age. FUCK THIS FUCKED UP GOVERNMENT AND THEIR BULSHIT.

[suenoga]

wtf are they fried in the head or what? because it seems that i can't seem to comprehend with the fact that 1 year olds shouldn't be learning foul languages such as "blow job" or "fuck" at such an early and tender age. FUCK THIS FUCKED UP GOVERNMENT AND THEIR BULSHIT.

I'd rather young children are exposed to foul language then contract an STD. Children won’t be traumatized by hearing the word "blowjob".

[/0]

I don't see the point of learning how to use vulgar language in the classroom. It is not essential to sex education and, if anything, it will only help to derogate the english language. If kids that age think it's ok to use words like 'fuck' in the classroom, then how will they talk in society? Will they have more trouble finding the correct register?

[hard]

wtf are they fried in the head or what? because it seems that i can't seem to comprehend with the fact that 1 year olds shouldn't be learning foul languages such as "blow job" or "fuck" at such an early and tender age. FUCK THIS FUCKED UP GOVERNMENT AND THEIR BULSHIT.

I'd rather young children are exposed to foul language then contract an STD. Children won’t be traumatized by hearing the word "blowjob".

are you serious? so you'd let your 1 year old child who doesn't even know how to go to the toilet yet to know the meaning of "blow job"? You'll let your child know that blow job means a girl/guy sucks a males penis? You'd let that? if so, i find that terribly saddening.

Did you know that STDs are likely to have been around for thousands of years but the most serious, AIDS, has only been recognised since 1984. http://www.familydoctor.co.nz/index.asp?U=conditions&A=947

yes thousands of years, yet all this time the tender nature and innocence of one year olds has been kept in tact. It is in this age were mindless people seem to think that corrupting the brain of an innocent child with such language will promote safe sex. So what if they know what the definition of a blow job means, it doesn't mean a one year old will have the capability to comprehend with the dangers involved. A one year old won't know what STD means. A 1 year old won't be able to distinguish between safe and unsafe. that causes these increase cases of STD, HIV and AIDs. Why can't we teach them the definition of such words at a more suitable age?

You know what, even the law recognizes that children aged between 10 and 14, not 1, are presumed criminally incapable. [1] Thus i would assume that this means they are unable to distinguish between right and wrong. So what makes you think a one year old will know the difference between right and wrong?

[1] "In all Australian criminal jurisdictions children under fourteen are presumed criminally incapable. This presumption of criminal incapacity has an irrebuttable and a rebuttable form depending on the age of the child. Since 2000 when Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory raised the age level, the age under which a child is irrebuttably presumed criminally incapable is now ten throughout Australia.[1] For children aged ten but not yet fourteen the presumption is conditional and may be rebutted by proof that the child understood the wrongfulness of what they were doing."
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10n3/crofts103_text.html#Introduction_T

so you know what, if you want your 1 year old to learn what: fuck, blow job, dick, pussy, ass hole means than by all means teach them at home and let them become the sex addict prostitutes they're destined to be. But if you say make it compulsory for all 1 year olds to learn the definitions of such words and their effects, then i'd go to great lengths to prevent such a thing from occurring.

[suenoga]

I don't see the point of learning how to use vulgar language in the classroom. It is not essential to sex education and, if anything, it will only help to derogate the english language. If kids that age think it's ok to use words like 'fuck' in the classroom, then how will they talk in society?

think it is essential to sexual education.  As the article says, kids need to understand exactly what the teacher is talking about, not be confused by the formal terms like "fellatio" which are seldom used by youth. In any case, kids will use this language any because they hear them in the media or from their brothers and sisters. Teenagers of today were not taught this method of sex ed yet they still use slang words like fuck and blowjob.  As I said, I'm more concerned with high rates of un-wanted pregnancy and STI"s then foul language.

[hard]

I don't see the point of learning how to use vulgar language in the classroom. It is not essential to sex education and, if anything, it will only help to derogate the english language. If kids that age think it's ok to use words like 'fuck' in the classroom, then how will they talk in society?

think it is essential to sexual education.  As the article says, kids need to understand exactly what the teacher is talking about, not be confused by the formal terms like "fellatio" which are seldom used by youth. In any case, kids will use this language any because they hear them in the media or from their brothers and sisters. Teenagers of today were not taught this method of sex ed yet they still use slang words like fuck and blowjob.  As I said, I'm more concerned with high rates of un-wanted pregnancy and STI"s then foul language.

you state a lot, but prove little.

[suenoga]

wtf are they fried in the head or what? because it seems that i can't seem to comprehend with the fact that 1 year olds shouldn't be learning foul languages such as "blow job" or "fuck" at such an early and tender age. FUCK THIS FUCKED UP GOVERNMENT AND THEIR BULSHIT.

I'd rather young children are exposed to foul language then contract an STD. Children won’t be traumatized by hearing the word "blowjob".

are you serious? so you'd let your 1 year old child who doesn't even know how to go to the toilet yet to know the meaning of "blow job"? You'll let your child know that blow job means a girl/guy sucks a males penis? You'd let that? if so, i find that terribly saddening.

Did you know that STDs are likely to have been around for thousands of years but the most serious, AIDS, has only been recognised since 1984. http://www.familydoctor.co.nz/index.asp?U=conditions&A=947

yes thousands of years, yet all this time the tender nature and innocence of one year olds has been kept in tact. It is in this age were mindless people seem to think that corrupting the brain of an innocent child with such language will promote safe sex. So what if they know what the definition of a blow job means, it doesn't mean a one year old will have the capability to comprehend with the dangers involved. A one year old won't know what STD means. A 1 year old won't be able to distinguish between safe and unsafe. that causes these increase cases of STD, HIV and AIDs. Why can't we teach them the definition of such words at a more suitable age?

You know what, even the law recognizes that children aged between 10 and 14, not 1, are presumed criminally incapable. [1] Thus i would assume that this means they are unable to distinguish between right and wrong. So what makes you think a one year old will know the difference between right and wrong?

[1] "In all Australian criminal jurisdictions children under fourteen are presumed criminally incapable. This presumption of criminal incapacity has an irrebuttable and a rebuttable form depending on the age of the child. Since 2000 when Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory raised the age level, the age under which a child is irrebuttably presumed criminally incapable is now ten throughout Australia.[1] For children aged ten but not yet fourteen the presumption is conditional and may be rebutted by proof that the child understood the wrongfulness of what they were doing."
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10n3/crofts103_text.html#Introduction_T

so you know what, if you want your 1 year old to learn what: fuck, blow job, dick, pussy, ass hole means than by all means teach them at home and let them become the sex addict prostitutes they're destined to be. But if you say make it compulsory for all 1 year olds to learn the definitions of such words and their effects, then i'd go to great lengths to prevent such a thing from occurring.

Who said I wanted this sort of sexual education taught to 1 year olds? Please quote me. I think a proper age sensitive sexual education system should be introduced in state schools from around grade 3/4.  Kids need to be exposed to the dangers and issues surrounding sex before they hit puberty.  When would you introduce sex education hard?

[suenoga]

I don't see the point of learning how to use vulgar language in the classroom. It is not essential to sex education and, if anything, it will only help to derogate the english language. If kids that age think it's ok to use words like 'fuck' in the classroom, then how will they talk in society?

think it is essential to sexual education.  As the article says, kids need to understand exactly what the teacher is talking about, not be confused by the formal terms like "fellatio" which are seldom used by youth. In any case, kids will use this language any because they hear them in the media or from their brothers and sisters. Teenagers of today were not taught this method of sex ed yet they still use slang words like fuck and blowjob.  As I said, I'm more concerned with high rates of un-wanted pregnancy and STI"s then foul language.

you state a lot, but prove little.

Maybe tell me where you disagree before going on another of your angry and perplexing rants.

[hard]

I don't see the point of learning how to use vulgar language in the classroom. It is not essential to sex education and, if anything, it will only help to derogate the english language. If kids that age think it's ok to use words like 'fuck' in the classroom, then how will they talk in society?

think it is essential to sexual education.  As the article says, kids need to understand exactly what the teacher is talking about, not be confused by the formal terms like "fellatio" which are seldom used by youth. In any case, kids will use this language any because they hear them in the media or from their brothers and sisters. Teenagers of today were not taught this method of sex ed yet they still use slang words like fuck and blowjob.  As I said, I'm more concerned with high rates of un-wanted pregnancy and STI"s then foul language.

you state a lot, but prove little.

Maybe tell me where you disagree before going on another of your angry and perplexing rants.

not angry at all. Quote me were i said i was angry.

I'd rather young children are exposed to foul language then contract an STD.

young children = young = including, i'd presume 0-5 year olds. And next time be precise instead of going on another of your pointless and foolish rants.

EDIT: to answer this question

 When would you introduce sex education hard?

it would require a great deal of reseach for me to pin point a precise age frame. But i highly condone this sort of information be taught to children as young as 5 or less.

[bubble sunglasses]

I don't see the point of learning how to use vulgar language in the classroom. It is not essential to sex education and, if anything, it will only help to derogate the english language. If kids that age think it's ok to use words like 'fuck' in the classroom, then how will they talk in society? Will they have more trouble finding the correct register?

I'm not sure I agree; they'd only be learning "vulgar language" in a specific context, they'd understand the notion of different registers as long as they were sufficiently exposed to them and had ample opportunity to practice different manners of expressing themselves.
 It depends what age though; there doesn't seem any point in having such lessons before grade 6.

[/0]

I don't see the point of learning how to use vulgar language in the classroom. It is not essential to sex education and, if anything, it will only help to derogate the english language. If kids that age think it's ok to use words like 'fuck' in the classroom, then how will they talk in society?

think it is essential to sexual education.  As the article says, kids need to understand exactly what the teacher is talking about, not be confused by the formal terms like "fellatio" which are seldom used by youth. In any case, kids will use this language any because they hear them in the media or from their brothers and sisters. Teenagers of today were not taught this method of sex ed yet they still use slang words like fuck and blowjob.  As I said, I'm more concerned with high rates of un-wanted pregnancy and STI"s then foul language.

Why use 'fuck' when you can use 'sex', 'blowjob' when you can use 'fellatio', 'cunt' when you can use 'vagina'?
If you want students to be able to use 'fuck' and 'blowjob' in the classroom then you'll have to face the consequences. I cannot see into the future but I would predict that school life and home life would greatly disturbed by these introductions - the younger the students the greater the impact. Not only is there a lot of potential in sex slang for bullying involving both sex and race, but respect for the school system and, in particular, for teachers, may be undermined. You can still effectively teach sex education without the need for these words. It's supposed to be a sex ed class, not a culture class.

[suenoga]

"young children = young = including, i'd presume 0-5 year olds. And next time be precise instead of going on another of your pointless and foolish rants."


I was precise. I said sex ed should be introduced around grade 3/4.


"it would require a great deal of reseach for me to pin point a precise age frame. But i highly condone this sort of information be taught to children as young as 5 or less"


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=condone
- I think you mean condemn.  

2- No one said it should be taught to children as young as 5 so I don't know why you are so pissed off.