February 16, 2007

6th Period: Sexploration


So, there's a lot of kids out there who, even after public school health class, don't really understand how sexual interaction works. The school nurse gives them condoms, but is that really enough to prepare them for the sexual world? I propose a mandatory Sexploration class. It could replace a gym credit if necessary (cardio). The school would provide clean beds, clean sheets, and most importantly a safe place for children to explore their changing bodies. After all, these children are going to be having hundreds of sexual partners anyway. We need to ensure they have a safe environment in which to do so.

5 comments:

Steve said...

Well, this would change the valedictorian race ...

I'll bite. The argument behind so-called "comprehensive sex-ed" classes isn't, at least in my opinion, that all kids are going to be sleeping around, it's that some will, and at least this way we might be able to control the spread of STDs. Whereas the exploration class assumes that every one of them will. I think that step between them is pretty significant.

Sabai said...

good point steve. So, the next question to ask is: Is there any harm in having pre-marital sex? For example, if every high schooler was having safe sex (no diseases, no pregnancies), would that be a better result than a few kids having sex and getting pregnant and passing diseases, with a majority of children abstaining completely?

Steve said...

Trying to set up a saving souls versus saving lives question as a pure hypothetical or as a policy matter?

If it's the latter, to be honest, aren't you setting up a false choice? Is there no way to effectively teach a curriculum best summed up as "don't have sex, don't have sex, don't have sex, but if you do, for crying out loud at least be smart enough to wear a condom." Does a high school class really have a major impact on this decision? Aren't parents, friends and personal values far more important components in this equation?

Although, to be honest, having to listen to the wrestling coach awkwardly describing the reproductive systems while reading straight from the textbook just might have scared a few people away from sex.

Sabai said...

Steve, first of all, the wrestling coach anecdote wins for best comment of the year. Secondly, I truly was not implying anything about divine morality and eternal punishment of sex before marriage. I'm literally talking about physiological, relational damage ('cause that's the only the argument could win in a secular world anyway).

Steve said...

Sorry about the assumption, although morality is a legitimate argument, it's just that it is tough to weigh versus tangible consequences. It would have required a more thoughtful post than I had in me at the time. It reminds me a little of the in vitro/stem cell debate up a little higher. If something is going to happen anyway, should we try to find something good in it (or at least try to keep it from being even worse) even if we disagree with the initial action?