Talk:Sex education
More authors?[edit]
I've tried to cover a decent cross section of the most frank and forthcoming authors in the English-speaking sex ed field, but I'm not sure I've covered all of them. I'm particularly curious about Sari Locker (her association with Alpha Books gives me pause, as there's a lot more Complete Idiot's Guide crap out there than there is Dummies crap), Nitya Lacroix (author of cheap British books often seen on bargain book racks), Yvonne Fulbright (author and presenter for some of Comcast's On Demand dating information shows), and Victoria Zdrok (what exactly does she use her PhD for, anyway?). Any thoughts, particularly for authors who would be appropriate for curious kids stumbling on this site? I don't think Dan Savage is really appropriate for a curious 12 year old, though Paul Joannides might be... EVDebs 03:17, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- Hah, curious 12 yos... how much of this site is appropriate for them? We never worried about that anywhere else. One comment I wanted to make relative to authors - Comfort is brought up and then dismissed, without mentioning any actual details of 1. what he wrote, 2. why it mattered (otherwise, why even bring him up?), and why he is now, what was the word, "discredited"? He did the Joy of Sex books, right? Although a bit dated, my old (early edition?) copy is pretty reasonable. We should have titles as well as authors, and perhaps even some "guidelines", like good for kids, good for the already growed-up, sciency (Ruth W) vs. more humorous or coarse... etc. human
03:41, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- Ah, I see, you have added what people have written, etc. Gettin' better. Still want an answer on Comfort, though. human 03:43, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- Comfort's work was rather fetishy -- didn't like deodorants or body hair removal, for example. It's one thing to indulge your own fetishes, but entirely a different thing to promote them over people's personal preferences. He broke much ground, but there's better out there now. EVDebs 21:23, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- Eh, what, being anti-chemicals and anti-shaving are wrong? Seriously, that in and of itself - if that's all there is - does not devalue his work. If he said, "gee, it's ok to schtup kids", I'd be all with ya there. But, um, saying "you don't have to shave" or "you don't have to apply aluminum chlorhydrate to your armpits" is not a "perversion". It's a healthy outlook. If you have nothing better to argue against him, his works shoudl be included. Maybe I call into question your perspective on this stuff: "didn't like deodorants or body hair removal, for example". Can you make a rational argument that deodorants and hair removal are essential, healthy human sexual characteristics? human 21:31, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- Essentially what I'm saying is that what you like is what you like, and as long as it's not harming yourself or someone else it's no one's business to tell you you should like something else if you don't. In that regard it's comparable to trying to learn evolutionary theory solely from Origin of Species without picking up so much as a copy of Scientific American to see what the modern understanding is. EVDebs 21:57, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- Uh, that's pretty much waht the Joy of Sex says... and how to enjoy it. How are we crossing swords here? - What I mean is, why was Comfort so wrong, and, I spose, what's your beef wtih him? human 22:05, 12 October 2007 (EDT) (please forgive the typos!)
- Eh, I'm just going to call it moot -- he's on the list and I don't think my objections are sufficient grounds to take him off. Sounds like you've read more of him than I have anyway, so I will bow to experience. EVDebs 22:20, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- I read him 30 years ago. I'm not saying he kept up with the times (STDs, etc) But that book,way back when, for us old farts, as good. Whether he is a good source nowadays... eh, I don't know. human 23:29, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- I read him 30 years ago. I'm not saying he kept up with the times (STDs, etc) But that book,way back when, for us old farts, as good. Whether he is a good source nowadays... eh, I don't know. human
- Eh, I'm just going to call it moot -- he's on the list and I don't think my objections are sufficient grounds to take him off. Sounds like you've read more of him than I have anyway, so I will bow to experience. EVDebs 22:20, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- Uh, that's pretty much waht the Joy of Sex says... and how to enjoy it. How are we crossing swords here? - What I mean is, why was Comfort so wrong, and, I spose, what's your beef wtih him? human
- "He broke much ground, but there's better out there" Yes, but the ground he broke was awesome. Sorry for the OR, POV, etc. He's on the list. human 21:48, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- Essentially what I'm saying is that what you like is what you like, and as long as it's not harming yourself or someone else it's no one's business to tell you you should like something else if you don't. In that regard it's comparable to trying to learn evolutionary theory solely from Origin of Species without picking up so much as a copy of Scientific American to see what the modern understanding is. EVDebs 21:57, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- Eh, what, being anti-chemicals and anti-shaving are wrong? Seriously, that in and of itself - if that's all there is - does not devalue his work. If he said, "gee, it's ok to schtup kids", I'd be all with ya there. But, um, saying "you don't have to shave" or "you don't have to apply aluminum chlorhydrate to your armpits" is not a "perversion". It's a healthy outlook. If you have nothing better to argue against him, his works shoudl be included. Maybe I call into question your perspective on this stuff: "didn't like deodorants or body hair removal, for example". Can you make a rational argument that deodorants and hair removal are essential, healthy human sexual characteristics? human
- Comfort's work was rather fetishy -- didn't like deodorants or body hair removal, for example. It's one thing to indulge your own fetishes, but entirely a different thing to promote them over people's personal preferences. He broke much ground, but there's better out there now. EVDebs 21:23, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- Ah, I see, you have added what people have written, etc. Gettin' better. Still want an answer on Comfort, though. human
Sex education and teens waiting[edit]
Don't think this will appear on CP's recent news.. and I even read it at Fox[1]... (it was the top link for me at Google News for the article)
“” Sex education boosts the likelihood that teens will delay having intercourse, according to a new study published in the January edition of the Journal of Adolescent Health.
Researchers found that male teens who received sex education in school were 71 percent less likely — and similarly educated female teens were 59 percent less likely — to have sexual intercourse before age 15.
|
And the abstract for those who read that type of thing. --Shagie 14:10, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Linking to pr0n.[edit]
Is it bad? DIscuss.-αmεσ (tinker) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
- No. If we don't link to pr0n, we're not really on the innertubes. Pr0n is a good healthy sex aid. Unless it is bad unhealthy pr0n. Maybe we should cover that at the pr0n article? human 21:15, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
No mention of eugenic value[edit]
This article leaves out the strongest argument for sexual education, the eugenic value in it. — Unsigned, by: Clawclaw / talk / contribs
Teachers[edit]
Isn't it better for the parents to inform their children on sex education? Lots of the people listed on the article are porn stars. I don't think I would be comfortable if I had a daughter or son and they were being taught how to have safe sex when surrounded by peers that he/she might end up in bed with while under aged. I don't really see the need for the government to practically raise the kids, it should be the parents job to inform their kids, unless your a lazy parent.--(ノ°Д°）ノʇsədɯəꓕ nɹnɯıꓤ
23:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Disappointing article or "Can I just complain?"[edit]
This reads more like a blog in which the authors wrote out their streams of consciousness. Frankly, I expected a good introduction, which does not exist as the current one reads like a stereotypical "cool" teenager talking. "...and stuff"? Really? My dog can do better than that, sunshine! This is a shame because sex education is a very interesting and important topic.
The list of sources of sex education definitely has a number good materials, but some are of questionable value, namely pornography. Anyway, I will take the time to improve this article. I cannot make any promises, however. I will turn this into a five page essay in MLA format. Nerd (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)