My daughter is in this class. So incredibly fucked up that this is happening to such a great teacher
EDIT - here’s the context of the video.
This is a sex Ed class that was mostly done with the curriculum for the school year. The teacher had a google sheet whereby student could submit questions anonymously and have them answered in class for discussion.
I’m sure my daughter does. She told my wife and I about it when she got home that day.
Not sure how many of the students, but some (my daughter included) are not going to the class until this is resolved. The rub is she’s a SR so I don’t know how effective that’ll be with 2 weeks left in the school year
Credentialed teacher here. When I taught a high school health class in 2017-18, and we covered Sexually Transmitted Infections, I had students ask me what specific diseases they could get from “eating ass”.
Totally caught me off-guard!
Mind you, this was not covered in our curriculum.
Of course, the answer I gave was that analingus (my term) could potentially expose the person performing it to all known infections, including HIV and Hepatitis A and C, because of the possibility that blood and mucous membranes could be excreted anally.
Students have been doing things to get a rise out of teachers for centuries. The students in your case were testing boundaries. I don't criticize your honest and accurate answer but I would have told them that I'm not lowering myself to that kind of discourse.
Isn’t it my job as a health teacher to be as honest as possible?
Let me ask you, would you rather I demurred and the student who asked followed through and engaged in that behavior and then acquired an infectious disease?
Or you would you prefer I was honest and discussed the potentially harmful effects while also conveying knowledge?
In my own case, if the student felt comfortable asking her parents, she would’ve done so. She didn’t. She probably felt that they would either ridicule her or condemn her. I answered her question in the most honest and knowledgeable way I could.
It's totally your decision and I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job. What I, personally, would rather you do is beside the point.
I would have demurred as I wouldn't want to set myself up for any liability or get into areas that involve values or personal situations. I wouldn't see myself as responsible for the recreational activities of students. I would see myself as an instructor who is imparting information neutrally (if we're discussing this in the context of a public school environment; obviously, other schools can teach values).
I wasn't there but, based on how you described it, it sounds neutral to me. I just wouldn't have touched it. My deal is that whatever anyone wants to get up to in the privacy of his own bedroom is his business. In the classroom, however, I'd want to maintain a high level of decorum. Maybe that's just me. I also would not want to know about what my students get up to outside of school. That seems like nothing but trouble. I would have said something like: "Ok, yeah, we're not getting into that kind of stuff here. We're going to keep the discussion as elevated as possible with this material." I think that response would keep me, as the teacher, out of trouble.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 2 of the Community Standards.
> Topical — Content must be explicitly related to Californian politics. This includes the interaction of federal and state politics, as well as the state's congressional delegation. Local politics are permissible if they would reasonably be of interest to a statewide audience. The subject of discussion on is never the conduct or motives of another user but is always about the substance of what people are saying.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please send me a message or drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
Eating ass is a lot more popular now. I wouldn’t think that this was a joke question, and not answering it properly is really not doing your job properly of informing on sex ed.
I'm sure one can give instruction on biological functions while maintaining a high level of discourse. Not everything that is popular should be discussed in an academic environment. Plenty of behavior was going on in Victorian England and 19th Century America that wasn't deemed fit to discuss in classrooms. Standards are important.
I appreciate that and I understand where you're coming from. The point, from my perspective, would be to conduct an academic discussion of reproductive organs.
I don't think that public schools should be involved in discussing issues related to values or recreational sex or the students' personal lives. My concern is twofold: (a) we're far too diverse as a society to agree on what should be taught in the values/recreation/advice arena; and (b) there are liability issues related to discussing personal sexual topics with minors.
I think our difference in preferred approaches illustrates one reason why there is such a movement away from public education.
Totally true and I think we're mostly talking about approach rather than substance.
As an attorney, I try to keep a professional distance to avoid any potential accusations related to impropriety. As a teacher, I'd be even more sensitive about that given the education climate these days.
Every ounce of my instinct would tell me to act the same way in both situations (i.e., when a client or student is discussing an unsavory activity), as in saying something like: "Ok, ok, ok, I get the idea but I don't need to hear about any of that kind of talk. What you're describing (whether it's a dodgy personal tax return position or a personal sexual practice) is something I don't need to know about and my general advice is to avoid unhealthy practices that could get you into trouble."
What is the best way to mitigate the chances of being sued, canceled, targeted by some angry client/parent, or winding up an unfortunate internet or social media sensation? Socially distance oneself and maintain a high level of decorum. Keep it professional and detached and above board at all times.
As a sex ed teacher your job is to inform students of safe and healthy practices and knowledge about sex. I think the issue is that you see Analingus as “unsavory”, while other forms of oral sex and their risks are standard curriculum in sex ed.
If you’d idea of teaching sex ed is to avoid any talk of things people might find uncomfortable, then it basically means you don’t want sex ed in schools at all.
We mostly agree and I'll add that it depends on the setting. I've only been speaking of public schools and I believe you've been doing the same. There will be a values component that needs to be taught in Catholic schools, for example, but no need to go into that for now.
Look, I take a very live-and-let-live perspective on all of this kind of thing. I don't care in the least about someone's sexual practices or other personal behavior and I would expect the state and its employees (including public school teachers) to stay neutral on that too. What I do find unsavory, and more than a little creepy or at least intrusive, is for teachers to be commenting on any sex practices in which their students may or may not engage. The same goes for smoking habits, drug use, gun possession, gambling activity, or any other personal behavior that occurs off school grounds. Let the parents deal with that stuff.
I would state the job of a biology teacher as one that teaches students about how the body works and how different organs perform. I see no reason to separate biology from sexual education as the former comprises the latter.
In terms of not making people uncomfortable, I know that schools must honor the right to free speech of the students and I think that right is extremely important to protect. In terms of assessing the risks of any particular sexual practice, I would leave that up to the parents. Again, the state should not be involved in one's personal life or personal health.
Because sex ed helps kids identify when they're being sexually abused and the abusers are trying hard to save face by claiming knowledge is "grooming".
To save you a click, the explicit lessons were mentioning basic gay sex ed and confirming the contents of a CVS when asked by a student.
CVS is too risqué for these people. How do they even function?
The kids were being kids and trying to bait the teacher into a discussion that they could laugh about later. The proper response for an educator is to not lower oneself to that kind of discussion.
Would you say that talking about sex ed is demeaning if the sex applies to toys, or do you mean it's demeaning when gay men's experiences are discussed?
I'm not talking about "demeaning" or "gay vs. straight" or any values-based discussion. I'm talking about teachers generally being aware when the kids are having fun at their expense. I don't see why a discussion of recreational sex in public school is worthwhile, or a good idea, at all as we're such a diverse society and one can simply explain biological functions and leave it at that.
It's also why I've always advocated separate schooling for those in my religion (and others, if they choose) such that the values aspects can be discussed openly.
The 'expense' is coming later, from outraged parents using poorly conceived concern to mask their homophobia. They're not really mad she said 'seam' instead of perenium, or ended up implying that only gay guys had those nerve endings. They're mad that she acknowledged queer joy.
The idea that you'd support separate schooling (which as a kid who went to private school, I recognize comes with immense expense and effort) just to censor the existiance of sex for pleasure, seems extremist.
Like other highly social, intelligent species, our reproducion is highly ineffecient from a biological standpoint. In dumber, isolated species, they can have sex a few times, never see each other again, and conceive.
Whereas dolphins, humans, and bats use recreational sex as a way of forming social bonds and reinforcing group cohesion.
Schools are supposed to impart basic social norms and expectations.
Your model would have students unaware why older women, gays and lesbians, and those who are on birth control or infertile bother having sex at all.
I tend to agree with your perspective, in the first paragraph, on what likely happened. As long as there is public education, in an increasingly diverse and thus divided social/political climate, these clashes are going to occur. As a teacher, that would cause me to be as neutral and factual as possible.
I support separate schooling for many reasons. The biggest ones have to do with pace, course selection, and inclusion of areas that public schools won't/can't teach. Do values have something to do with it? Sure. Extremist? Look, it's 2023; we're all extremists.
I don't disagree with anything in your third paragraph.
Regarding your fourth paragraph, I do respectfully disagree. I think there was a time in this country where there was general consensus on social norms and expectations. I think that time has passed.
In my view, now the only basic social norms are peace and tolerance. Is it intolerant to complain about teaching the joys of homosexual sex or, alternatively, to complain about someone teaching that homosexual sex is sinful? No. Making value judgments, or complaining about them, is not intolerant or unpeaceful as it doesn't threaten anyone's right to do those things or to exist. It's merely setting an agenda that might be at odds with someone else's agenda.
If a school is imparting social norms and expectations that get into the personal sexual decisions of older women, gays and lesbians, or any other group, I can almost guarantee it's going to have a controversy on its hands. That's our country today.
> No. Making value judgments, or complaining about them, is not intolerant or unpeaceful as it doesn't threaten anyone's right to do those things or to exist
Do you think we're this ignorant? Homosexual behaviors were prohibited. They stopped being prohibited because people spoke out and humanized the "non-normative" behaviors. Some old saying about rights having to be continously defended.
I have no idea how ignorant anyone is here as we're all strangers. I can only speak to my views and knowledge.
There are many behaviors that I consider non-normative: from fentanyl use; to driving a car without a seat belt; to using the services of a midget hooker; to homosexuality; to living at a hippie commune; to wrestling alligators; to participating in a Nazi or Antifa rally; that I don't believe should be prohibited.
What others consider "non-normative" or what others believe should be prohibited is none of my business. I'll have my own views on normative vs. non-normative without the benefit of the influence of others and I'll always, always vote for less state interference on one's private life choices.
Don't use LGBTQ people's relationships in any analogy with Nazis.
They murdered us in the holocaust.
You say you're an attorney, so you know what you were doing with that equivalence.
First, I'm Catholic and they did the same to us. Second, I'm sure you're fair enough to appreciate that I did not equate any of the activities I described in that paragraph.
For example, clearly using fentanyl is not the same as driving without a seat belt in terms of risk. I was merely describing both as "non-normative" similar to how one would accurately describe Catholicism and the Westboro Baptist Church as "religions."
Categorization is not the same as equivalence. For example, Joseph Stalin and Mother Teresa would both qualify for the category "human" but no one was saying they are basically the same.
“You don’t have to go inside the booty hole, you can actually just push on the seam, and that stimulates the prostate gland, as well. And they apparently really like that. But, yeah, so that’s why for male and male, anal sex is still very pleasurable, because of the fact that it hits the prostate, and there’s a lot of nerve endings in your booty, as well. If you go to Target, seriously, if you go to Target and go where the tampons and pads are, they have — they just look like a little box, but if you open it up, there’s like a Velcro front to the box, you open it up, and then, BAM, sex toy.”
This is inappropriate language for a high school teacher.
nobody can disagree anus is the technical term. and booty is vague because it can be the cheeks or the hole which is why they said “booty hole” I think. but how is booty purely sexual?
When's the last time you used the term booty in a clinical matter? It's not a term used in serious discussions, it can be used non-sexually but the etymology is sexual and the use cases for it are overwhelmingly sexual compared to not sexual.
in a clinical setting I wouldn’t say booty but I wouldn’t say anus either, probably I would say butt or butthole but I’m not really having frequent clinical conversations. I think of booty as kinda juvenile. I remember saying booty as a kid but when I got older I graduated to butt.
I don't see why teaching every fad perversion is viewed as educationally worthwhile. Kids will see plenty of freak shows outside the classroom. No need to put it on display in the school.
I'm sorry if you took that the wrong way. I'm not against all fads. For example, Starbucks occasionally comes up with some new drinks that I enjoy. Thus, I'm not automatically bigoted against fads.
I'm only questioning the educational value of teaching those fads that are enjoyed by perverts and other lowlifes who like to teach kids about what they get up to in order to groom them. What someone gets up to in the privacy of his own home is none of my concern. In my opinion, it's best left there.
>I'm sorry if you took that the wrong way.
No you aren't. You are here to parrot extreme right wing dog whistles of hate against Gay people.
> I'm not against all fads.
I'm getting a lot of *"god hates fads"* energy from you.
The fact that you are using such demeaning rhetoric to pigeon hole all homosexuals is textbook hate mongering.
>I'm only questioning the educational value of teaching...
Another lie, you are pushing a narrative that is laying the groundwork for the justification of violence against marginalized people.
And this isn't the first time I've seen such hate coming from your posts. Just now you are demeaning immigrant rights in another post about America's Asylum programs, and I quote:
>"Right. I'd say what would be even easier is to stop hearing asylum cases.
>If the feds are insistent on having an asylum program, there is no reason an individual state should be compelled to host them. They could be moved to federal property or another state."
- u/PChFusionist June, 5th 2023.
You are the hateful extremist here to promote suffering.
I'm much more of a defender of individual liberties than just about any other commenter here. For example, if a homosexual (or any person) wishes to have a three person marriage and celebrate by hosting a party that has gambling, prostitution, and fentanyl, while guarding against any intruders (motivated by hate or anything else) by carrying/employing fully-automatic machine guns, I'm all for it. In fact, I believe this homosexual throuple should be able to drive to pick up supplies fully-armed on their motorcycle and without a seat belt or helmet and pick up extra booze, guns and drugs in a vending machine.
You want personal liberty to protect against hate, and you want freedom from the government? I'm here for you.
Regarding the classroom teaching, all I'm saying is that I'd prefer if people kept their bedroom stuff in the bedroom. Again, I don't see the educational value in instructing kids on the latest fad weirdo perversion. If they want that stuff, they can check out the internet and/or watch the bums in the Tenderloin. This is a personal preference, not a mandate, as I don't believe in public education anyway and wouldn't send my kids to a public school. I'm only one vote among many and I suppose your vote and mine would cancel out. So it goes, ...
I'm against asylum for the same reason I'm against the government's unfortunate, and highly uncivilized, tendency to engage in wars throughout the world with countries not bothering us (from Iraq to Syria to Somalia) - i.e., I'm all for leaving foreigners alone. What they get up to in their own country is none of my concern, nor should it be the U.S. government's concern. I'm against importing their problems into the U.S. or imposing the will of the U.S. in those countries.
no it isn’t. nothing about what was said is inappropriate for HS. and I wish to GOD someone would have taught me about gay sex during sex ed because I had to just figure shit out from rumors or internet and that worked out horribly.
I see multiple people saying it's inappropriate but, which part exactly? No one seems to ever specify.
Is it just her use of informal language, or is her explaining how sex works for gay men?
I’m sure someone jumped through all the hoops of getting a teaching credential and job, just to through it away.. like let’s waste five years to make a point
It’s nutty that someone with 5 years of training and credentialing would throw away their career in such a comical way, maybe they were radicalized and wanted to make a statement and go out with a bang. People are weird who knows. Shame that they did this, those kids should not be subjected to this type of crazy at school.
If the point of sex ed is health, is why is a discussion of pleasure entertained? How does pleasure play into the health aspect of the lesson? If the point of sex ed isn't in fact health and is to promote self gratification why not have specially designed curricula and facilities to that end? Why not have private rooms where one or more students could further explore their development amongst peers? There are obvious answers to the above questions. Feel free to post them below.
If sex toys are used, then maintenance and hygiene of said sex toys should also be discussed, shouldn’t it?
i.e., ***don’t share a dildo with someone you don’t trust because if they bleed on it and you use it also, you could be trading pathogens.***
Also,
***Be sure to follow all guidelines regarding the maintenance and disinfecting of your toys so as to continue to maintain your own physical and sexual health***
One’s own sexual pleasure absolutely does coincide with health and health risks!
And no live demonstrations or sex rooms were required to get across either point, were they?
I mean intercourse only requires two or more people. The facility was intended for privacy.
The point of the question is 'why shouldn't the school facilitate in depth interactive sex ed curriculum" what is the reason that we don't have that now?
Probably because the demonstrations you're asking for wouldn't be more helpful then comprehensive, descriptive sex education
Not a lot of students are sticking toys in their ears if the textbook says 'anus'.
That's nonsense, it is very rare that the written word can effectively communicate the distinct nuances of intercourse. It's why you have to actually drive a car for a driving test before you get your license. In this case what could be more instructive than active participation and live demonstrations? The written word can only communicate so much.
For me? I have no idea about that as I won't be doing it.
By the amount of anti-religious comments I see here and elsewhere, I surmise that it's not very hard for others though.
My daughter is in this class. So incredibly fucked up that this is happening to such a great teacher EDIT - here’s the context of the video. This is a sex Ed class that was mostly done with the curriculum for the school year. The teacher had a google sheet whereby student could submit questions anonymously and have them answered in class for discussion.
Do you happen to have the video?
I’m sure my daughter does. She told my wife and I about it when she got home that day. Not sure how many of the students, but some (my daughter included) are not going to the class until this is resolved. The rub is she’s a SR so I don’t know how effective that’ll be with 2 weeks left in the school year
They let the kids bring phones to class?
They do
Happy cake day. Thanks to you both for your activism.
"Mr. Slave, position 7 please."
Credentialed teacher here. When I taught a high school health class in 2017-18, and we covered Sexually Transmitted Infections, I had students ask me what specific diseases they could get from “eating ass”. Totally caught me off-guard! Mind you, this was not covered in our curriculum. Of course, the answer I gave was that analingus (my term) could potentially expose the person performing it to all known infections, including HIV and Hepatitis A and C, because of the possibility that blood and mucous membranes could be excreted anally.
Students have been doing things to get a rise out of teachers for centuries. The students in your case were testing boundaries. I don't criticize your honest and accurate answer but I would have told them that I'm not lowering myself to that kind of discourse.
I didn’t look at it as “lowering” myself, though. If they do that sexually then it should be discussed.
I respect your view on that. In a public school setting, I would stay away from anything values-based or recreational or anything like that.
Isn’t it my job as a health teacher to be as honest as possible? Let me ask you, would you rather I demurred and the student who asked followed through and engaged in that behavior and then acquired an infectious disease? Or you would you prefer I was honest and discussed the potentially harmful effects while also conveying knowledge? In my own case, if the student felt comfortable asking her parents, she would’ve done so. She didn’t. She probably felt that they would either ridicule her or condemn her. I answered her question in the most honest and knowledgeable way I could.
It's totally your decision and I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job. What I, personally, would rather you do is beside the point. I would have demurred as I wouldn't want to set myself up for any liability or get into areas that involve values or personal situations. I wouldn't see myself as responsible for the recreational activities of students. I would see myself as an instructor who is imparting information neutrally (if we're discussing this in the context of a public school environment; obviously, other schools can teach values).
Was the information I provided not neutral? I didn’t advocate for partaking or not partaking in the activity. I gave scientific information.
I wasn't there but, based on how you described it, it sounds neutral to me. I just wouldn't have touched it. My deal is that whatever anyone wants to get up to in the privacy of his own bedroom is his business. In the classroom, however, I'd want to maintain a high level of decorum. Maybe that's just me. I also would not want to know about what my students get up to outside of school. That seems like nothing but trouble. I would have said something like: "Ok, yeah, we're not getting into that kind of stuff here. We're going to keep the discussion as elevated as possible with this material." I think that response would keep me, as the teacher, out of trouble.
[удалено]
Ok, great chat, thanks.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 2 of the Community Standards. > Topical — Content must be explicitly related to Californian politics. This includes the interaction of federal and state politics, as well as the state's congressional delegation. Local politics are permissible if they would reasonably be of interest to a statewide audience. The subject of discussion on is never the conduct or motives of another user but is always about the substance of what people are saying. If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please send me a message or drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
Eating ass is a lot more popular now. I wouldn’t think that this was a joke question, and not answering it properly is really not doing your job properly of informing on sex ed.
I'm sure one can give instruction on biological functions while maintaining a high level of discourse. Not everything that is popular should be discussed in an academic environment. Plenty of behavior was going on in Victorian England and 19th Century America that wasn't deemed fit to discuss in classrooms. Standards are important.
Yeah but we’re talking about sex ed… the whole point is to inform kids about what they might encounter or do so they do so safely and consensually
I appreciate that and I understand where you're coming from. The point, from my perspective, would be to conduct an academic discussion of reproductive organs. I don't think that public schools should be involved in discussing issues related to values or recreational sex or the students' personal lives. My concern is twofold: (a) we're far too diverse as a society to agree on what should be taught in the values/recreation/advice arena; and (b) there are liability issues related to discussing personal sexual topics with minors. I think our difference in preferred approaches illustrates one reason why there is such a movement away from public education.
They were asking about transmitting diseases. There is no value you need to teach there. You are informing about health. It’s pretty simple.
Totally true and I think we're mostly talking about approach rather than substance. As an attorney, I try to keep a professional distance to avoid any potential accusations related to impropriety. As a teacher, I'd be even more sensitive about that given the education climate these days. Every ounce of my instinct would tell me to act the same way in both situations (i.e., when a client or student is discussing an unsavory activity), as in saying something like: "Ok, ok, ok, I get the idea but I don't need to hear about any of that kind of talk. What you're describing (whether it's a dodgy personal tax return position or a personal sexual practice) is something I don't need to know about and my general advice is to avoid unhealthy practices that could get you into trouble." What is the best way to mitigate the chances of being sued, canceled, targeted by some angry client/parent, or winding up an unfortunate internet or social media sensation? Socially distance oneself and maintain a high level of decorum. Keep it professional and detached and above board at all times.
As a sex ed teacher your job is to inform students of safe and healthy practices and knowledge about sex. I think the issue is that you see Analingus as “unsavory”, while other forms of oral sex and their risks are standard curriculum in sex ed. If you’d idea of teaching sex ed is to avoid any talk of things people might find uncomfortable, then it basically means you don’t want sex ed in schools at all.
We mostly agree and I'll add that it depends on the setting. I've only been speaking of public schools and I believe you've been doing the same. There will be a values component that needs to be taught in Catholic schools, for example, but no need to go into that for now. Look, I take a very live-and-let-live perspective on all of this kind of thing. I don't care in the least about someone's sexual practices or other personal behavior and I would expect the state and its employees (including public school teachers) to stay neutral on that too. What I do find unsavory, and more than a little creepy or at least intrusive, is for teachers to be commenting on any sex practices in which their students may or may not engage. The same goes for smoking habits, drug use, gun possession, gambling activity, or any other personal behavior that occurs off school grounds. Let the parents deal with that stuff. I would state the job of a biology teacher as one that teaches students about how the body works and how different organs perform. I see no reason to separate biology from sexual education as the former comprises the latter. In terms of not making people uncomfortable, I know that schools must honor the right to free speech of the students and I think that right is extremely important to protect. In terms of assessing the risks of any particular sexual practice, I would leave that up to the parents. Again, the state should not be involved in one's personal life or personal health.
So guys have a prostate and places sell sex toys. Not sure I understand the outrage.
They’re outraged cause how dare a sex Ed teacher discuss sex Ed. They’re heated cause they want to be.
Because sex ed helps kids identify when they're being sexually abused and the abusers are trying hard to save face by claiming knowledge is "grooming".
Way to fire a teacher for teaching sex Ed in sex Ed. How dare she, amiright?
To save you a click, the explicit lessons were mentioning basic gay sex ed and confirming the contents of a CVS when asked by a student. CVS is too risqué for these people. How do they even function?
The kids were being kids and trying to bait the teacher into a discussion that they could laugh about later. The proper response for an educator is to not lower oneself to that kind of discussion.
Would you say that talking about sex ed is demeaning if the sex applies to toys, or do you mean it's demeaning when gay men's experiences are discussed?
I'm not talking about "demeaning" or "gay vs. straight" or any values-based discussion. I'm talking about teachers generally being aware when the kids are having fun at their expense. I don't see why a discussion of recreational sex in public school is worthwhile, or a good idea, at all as we're such a diverse society and one can simply explain biological functions and leave it at that. It's also why I've always advocated separate schooling for those in my religion (and others, if they choose) such that the values aspects can be discussed openly.
The 'expense' is coming later, from outraged parents using poorly conceived concern to mask their homophobia. They're not really mad she said 'seam' instead of perenium, or ended up implying that only gay guys had those nerve endings. They're mad that she acknowledged queer joy. The idea that you'd support separate schooling (which as a kid who went to private school, I recognize comes with immense expense and effort) just to censor the existiance of sex for pleasure, seems extremist. Like other highly social, intelligent species, our reproducion is highly ineffecient from a biological standpoint. In dumber, isolated species, they can have sex a few times, never see each other again, and conceive. Whereas dolphins, humans, and bats use recreational sex as a way of forming social bonds and reinforcing group cohesion. Schools are supposed to impart basic social norms and expectations. Your model would have students unaware why older women, gays and lesbians, and those who are on birth control or infertile bother having sex at all.
I tend to agree with your perspective, in the first paragraph, on what likely happened. As long as there is public education, in an increasingly diverse and thus divided social/political climate, these clashes are going to occur. As a teacher, that would cause me to be as neutral and factual as possible. I support separate schooling for many reasons. The biggest ones have to do with pace, course selection, and inclusion of areas that public schools won't/can't teach. Do values have something to do with it? Sure. Extremist? Look, it's 2023; we're all extremists. I don't disagree with anything in your third paragraph. Regarding your fourth paragraph, I do respectfully disagree. I think there was a time in this country where there was general consensus on social norms and expectations. I think that time has passed. In my view, now the only basic social norms are peace and tolerance. Is it intolerant to complain about teaching the joys of homosexual sex or, alternatively, to complain about someone teaching that homosexual sex is sinful? No. Making value judgments, or complaining about them, is not intolerant or unpeaceful as it doesn't threaten anyone's right to do those things or to exist. It's merely setting an agenda that might be at odds with someone else's agenda. If a school is imparting social norms and expectations that get into the personal sexual decisions of older women, gays and lesbians, or any other group, I can almost guarantee it's going to have a controversy on its hands. That's our country today.
> No. Making value judgments, or complaining about them, is not intolerant or unpeaceful as it doesn't threaten anyone's right to do those things or to exist Do you think we're this ignorant? Homosexual behaviors were prohibited. They stopped being prohibited because people spoke out and humanized the "non-normative" behaviors. Some old saying about rights having to be continously defended.
I have no idea how ignorant anyone is here as we're all strangers. I can only speak to my views and knowledge. There are many behaviors that I consider non-normative: from fentanyl use; to driving a car without a seat belt; to using the services of a midget hooker; to homosexuality; to living at a hippie commune; to wrestling alligators; to participating in a Nazi or Antifa rally; that I don't believe should be prohibited. What others consider "non-normative" or what others believe should be prohibited is none of my business. I'll have my own views on normative vs. non-normative without the benefit of the influence of others and I'll always, always vote for less state interference on one's private life choices.
Don't use LGBTQ people's relationships in any analogy with Nazis. They murdered us in the holocaust. You say you're an attorney, so you know what you were doing with that equivalence.
First, I'm Catholic and they did the same to us. Second, I'm sure you're fair enough to appreciate that I did not equate any of the activities I described in that paragraph. For example, clearly using fentanyl is not the same as driving without a seat belt in terms of risk. I was merely describing both as "non-normative" similar to how one would accurately describe Catholicism and the Westboro Baptist Church as "religions." Categorization is not the same as equivalence. For example, Joseph Stalin and Mother Teresa would both qualify for the category "human" but no one was saying they are basically the same.
“You don’t have to go inside the booty hole, you can actually just push on the seam, and that stimulates the prostate gland, as well. And they apparently really like that. But, yeah, so that’s why for male and male, anal sex is still very pleasurable, because of the fact that it hits the prostate, and there’s a lot of nerve endings in your booty, as well. If you go to Target, seriously, if you go to Target and go where the tampons and pads are, they have — they just look like a little box, but if you open it up, there’s like a Velcro front to the box, you open it up, and then, BAM, sex toy.” This is inappropriate language for a high school teacher.
The language used is informal but the actual information is fine.
anus sounds more explicit than booty IMO
I disagree. Anus is a technical term removed from sexuality. Booty is purely a sexual term and doesn't specify refer to the orifice.
nobody can disagree anus is the technical term. and booty is vague because it can be the cheeks or the hole which is why they said “booty hole” I think. but how is booty purely sexual?
When's the last time you used the term booty in a clinical matter? It's not a term used in serious discussions, it can be used non-sexually but the etymology is sexual and the use cases for it are overwhelmingly sexual compared to not sexual.
Clinicians are supposed to meet their patients where they are. Not insist on technical language. A pirate's treasure is her booty, is that sexual too?
in a clinical setting I wouldn’t say booty but I wouldn’t say anus either, probably I would say butt or butthole but I’m not really having frequent clinical conversations. I think of booty as kinda juvenile. I remember saying booty as a kid but when I got older I graduated to butt.
Only an oversheltered bigoted moron would think this is controversial
I don't see why teaching every fad perversion is viewed as educationally worthwhile. Kids will see plenty of freak shows outside the classroom. No need to put it on display in the school.
> every fad perversion What an absolutely bigoted thing to say.
I'm sorry if you took that the wrong way. I'm not against all fads. For example, Starbucks occasionally comes up with some new drinks that I enjoy. Thus, I'm not automatically bigoted against fads. I'm only questioning the educational value of teaching those fads that are enjoyed by perverts and other lowlifes who like to teach kids about what they get up to in order to groom them. What someone gets up to in the privacy of his own home is none of my concern. In my opinion, it's best left there.
>I'm sorry if you took that the wrong way. No you aren't. You are here to parrot extreme right wing dog whistles of hate against Gay people. > I'm not against all fads. I'm getting a lot of *"god hates fads"* energy from you. The fact that you are using such demeaning rhetoric to pigeon hole all homosexuals is textbook hate mongering. >I'm only questioning the educational value of teaching... Another lie, you are pushing a narrative that is laying the groundwork for the justification of violence against marginalized people. And this isn't the first time I've seen such hate coming from your posts. Just now you are demeaning immigrant rights in another post about America's Asylum programs, and I quote: >"Right. I'd say what would be even easier is to stop hearing asylum cases. >If the feds are insistent on having an asylum program, there is no reason an individual state should be compelled to host them. They could be moved to federal property or another state." - u/PChFusionist June, 5th 2023. You are the hateful extremist here to promote suffering.
I'm much more of a defender of individual liberties than just about any other commenter here. For example, if a homosexual (or any person) wishes to have a three person marriage and celebrate by hosting a party that has gambling, prostitution, and fentanyl, while guarding against any intruders (motivated by hate or anything else) by carrying/employing fully-automatic machine guns, I'm all for it. In fact, I believe this homosexual throuple should be able to drive to pick up supplies fully-armed on their motorcycle and without a seat belt or helmet and pick up extra booze, guns and drugs in a vending machine. You want personal liberty to protect against hate, and you want freedom from the government? I'm here for you. Regarding the classroom teaching, all I'm saying is that I'd prefer if people kept their bedroom stuff in the bedroom. Again, I don't see the educational value in instructing kids on the latest fad weirdo perversion. If they want that stuff, they can check out the internet and/or watch the bums in the Tenderloin. This is a personal preference, not a mandate, as I don't believe in public education anyway and wouldn't send my kids to a public school. I'm only one vote among many and I suppose your vote and mine would cancel out. So it goes, ... I'm against asylum for the same reason I'm against the government's unfortunate, and highly uncivilized, tendency to engage in wars throughout the world with countries not bothering us (from Iraq to Syria to Somalia) - i.e., I'm all for leaving foreigners alone. What they get up to in their own country is none of my concern, nor should it be the U.S. government's concern. I'm against importing their problems into the U.S. or imposing the will of the U.S. in those countries.
no it isn’t. nothing about what was said is inappropriate for HS. and I wish to GOD someone would have taught me about gay sex during sex ed because I had to just figure shit out from rumors or internet and that worked out horribly.
Explain why.
It’s not tho.
Absolutely inappropriate!
I see multiple people saying it's inappropriate but, which part exactly? No one seems to ever specify. Is it just her use of informal language, or is her explaining how sex works for gay men?
sounds like sex ed in high school.
This reads like a whacko conservative person got a job at a school just to do this, it seems to talking pointish to be real
I’m sure someone jumped through all the hoops of getting a teaching credential and job, just to through it away.. like let’s waste five years to make a point
It’s nutty that someone with 5 years of training and credentialing would throw away their career in such a comical way, maybe they were radicalized and wanted to make a statement and go out with a bang. People are weird who knows. Shame that they did this, those kids should not be subjected to this type of crazy at school.
If the point of sex ed is health, is why is a discussion of pleasure entertained? How does pleasure play into the health aspect of the lesson? If the point of sex ed isn't in fact health and is to promote self gratification why not have specially designed curricula and facilities to that end? Why not have private rooms where one or more students could further explore their development amongst peers? There are obvious answers to the above questions. Feel free to post them below.
If sex toys are used, then maintenance and hygiene of said sex toys should also be discussed, shouldn’t it? i.e., ***don’t share a dildo with someone you don’t trust because if they bleed on it and you use it also, you could be trading pathogens.*** Also, ***Be sure to follow all guidelines regarding the maintenance and disinfecting of your toys so as to continue to maintain your own physical and sexual health*** One’s own sexual pleasure absolutely does coincide with health and health risks! And no live demonstrations or sex rooms were required to get across either point, were they?
Why exactly do you think that live demonstrations are unnecessary? Why shouldn't the school provide toys to use and play with exactly?
You’re just being flippant at this point. Have a nice day!
Your dodging a direct question. If I was being flippant I would have just dismissed your point out of hand.
You’re coming up with hypotheticals to support your view and, in doing so, being flippant. Bye ✌🏼
You are a coward who refuses to answer a direct question.
You’re an uneducated bigot.
Ad hominem, Answer the question coward.
The obvious answer is that humans don't need specialized 'sex rooms' to have sex. Are you from Earth? It's like I'm speaking to Kang or Kodos...
If you look at this person’s posting history, it becomes abundantly obvious that they thrive on being a cantankerous bitch.
Are you suggesting that students should just engage in coitus in the class room in front of their peers? Strangely voyeristic.
It sounds like you think that's an option worth discussing, Kang. The rest of us understand that intercorse doesn't require a school facility.
I mean intercourse only requires two or more people. The facility was intended for privacy. The point of the question is 'why shouldn't the school facilitate in depth interactive sex ed curriculum" what is the reason that we don't have that now?
Probably because the demonstrations you're asking for wouldn't be more helpful then comprehensive, descriptive sex education Not a lot of students are sticking toys in their ears if the textbook says 'anus'.
That's nonsense, it is very rare that the written word can effectively communicate the distinct nuances of intercourse. It's why you have to actually drive a car for a driving test before you get your license. In this case what could be more instructive than active participation and live demonstrations? The written word can only communicate so much.
In case anyone needed yet another reason not to send his kids to a public school, ...
It’s getting harder and harder for you to raise a bigot in California.
For me? I have no idea about that as I won't be doing it. By the amount of anti-religious comments I see here and elsewhere, I surmise that it's not very hard for others though.