Quote:
|
Ustwo and JinnKai, should this be the full extent of sex ed? If so, then your model needs not address homosexuality, as it barely addresses sexuality in any full scope. But maybe this is what's practical for the public school system.
|
Would you have actually learned anything by having someone explain "sexual identity" to you when you were 15? Even if so, do you think your peers would've? It seems like a phenomenal waste of time, to me. And no, I don't think it should be that simplified, but I don't believe that homosexuality or heterosexuality need to be addressed
specifically and
separately, but only in terms of pregnancy and disease avoidance.
I think our difference of opinion is highlighted in the wording of your question: "barely addresses sexuality in any full scope." I don't think sex-ed should address sexuality. I think it should address sex, how it's dangerous, and how to avoid that danger.
It's like teaching skydivers about the theory of skydiving, the different way that people like to skydive, the reasons one would want to skydive a certain way or another, and how a parachute works when really when what the two lesson plans should be
SKYDIVING IS DANGEROUS and
HOW TO USE THE PARACHUTE TO AVOID THAT DANGER.