AMA seeks sex lessons for 10-year-olds

[bubble sunglasses]

  see below. *using* those words isn't being advocated, she just urges the making sure that children understand fellatio=blow-jobs.
 
"If we're discussing the risk of sexually transmitted infections through fellatio, we need to make sure that these young people understand we're talking about blow jobs."

[hard]

cbfed arguing at this time tbh so anyway.

[Matt The Rat]

I wanna see the teacher demos

[hard]

I wanna see the teacher demos

lol

[squance]

I wanna see the teacher demos

Man...imagine if the teachers at my school did that....ROFL!!!

[TrueLight]

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.

totally agree

[costargh]

bjs ftw

[midas_touch]

I wanna see the teacher demos

Would they invite students to be 'assistants'?

[squance]

I wanna see the teacher demos

Would they invite students to be 'assistants'?

Eek! Molestation!

[Matt The Rat]

I wanna see the teacher demos

Would they invite students to be 'ASSistants'?

Only at the Greek schools

[ursus]

 see below. *using* those words isn't being advocated, she just urges the making sure that children understand fellatio=blow-jobs.
 
"If we're discussing the risk of sexually transmitted infections through fellatio, we need to make sure that these young people understand we're talking about blow jobs."

That's exactly right. There's no point just using the formal terms such as "fellatio" in the classroom, because when put into a situation out in the real world, these kids won't understand that a "blow job" and fellatio" are the same thing.
And I'm pretty sure the importance of sexual health and awareness of STIs of future generations is more important than the decline of formal english.

[bubble sunglasses]

^ "And I'm pretty sure the importance of sexual health and awareness of STIs of future generations is more important than the decline of formal english."
 
 Well, it depends what you mean by "decline". The ability to understand and communicate formally and [as /0 mentioned] having a good understanding of the notion of register [level of formality], I would contend is important.
 But as I said on my post on page 1, being aware of the slang terms and even using them [though I don't think they should become standard for the classroom] doesn't have to spark such a decline.

[ursus]

It was more in reply to this:
"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."

and this:
    
"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?"