Sex Education and the Public Schools

[mal]

Subject:

Growing and Changing

A Student Book
for the Fifth Grade Science Study
of the Human Reproductive System

Developed by

The Science Department
Jefferson County Public Schools
1829 Denver West Drive
Golden, Colorado 80401​

Let me begin by Asking that my Wife by Respected in this Discussion and not the Issue. I Know about this because my Wife is an Elementary Teacher in Jefferson County, the Largest School District in Colorado... The last time she Taught 5th Grade, which was 3 years ago, she had this Material provided to her and her Class by the County... This is from her copy.

Again, I will NOT answer questions about her and I am asking that she NOT be Discussed.

This has been an ongoing Debate between myself and some who Deny this Exists or that it is and has been Taught for Decades in "Growing and Changing" for 5th Graders in Jefferson County...

Adams County, which includes a lot of Denver Public Schools, were using the same type of Materials in Elementary back in the late 70's when I was that age and it's my Understanding that DPS proper has the same Materials.

Here are some Notable pages from the Handbook that is given to each 5th Grader, unless their Parents Opt them out of the Course:

Note the "Sexual Intercourse" section that starts on page 35.

The reason this EVER became an Issue was because some on the Left think that "Gay Children" are Underserved in the Education System and need to be Included.

My Question was, what do you do with this SexEd book?...

It certainly doesn't Include ANYTHING for Homosexuals and thier "Intercourse", so should it?...

If they aren't Included, isn't it Exlcusionary and Wrong?

Or should, as I Believe, the subject of Homosexuality be Reserved for Adults?

If you Believe that Homosexual Sex should be Included as not Exclude any Possible Homosexual Children, then how would you word it, Considering how "Sexual Intercourse" is Described in this Booklet for 5th Graders?

Discuss.



peace...

 

[Ravi]

Is there a graphic in your post? If so, I can't see it...I have your website blocked.

 

[mal]

Is there a graphic in your post? If so, I can't see it...I have your website blocked.

I'd unblock it... Otherwise move along, Ravi... This is EXACTLY the kind of Childishness I was Hoping you would Avoid...

And why I only bother with (2) Images.

Have a good one...

Let me Know when you Grow up.



peace...

 

[Ravi]

Is there a graphic in your post? If so, I can't see it...I have your website blocked.

I'd unblock it... Otherwise move along, Ravi... This is EXACTLY the kind of Childishness I was Hoping you would Avoid...

And why I only bother with (2) Images.

Have a good one...

Let me Know when you Grow up.



peace...

There are other ways to post it.

Anyone that is not blocking mal's website is free to chime in.

 

[mal]

Is there a graphic in your post? If so, I can't see it...I have your website blocked.

I'd unblock it... Otherwise move along, Ravi... This is EXACTLY the kind of Childishness I was Hoping you would Avoid...

And why I only bother with (2) Images.

Have a good one...

Let me Know when you Grow up.



peace...

There are other ways to post it.

Anyone that is not blocking mal's website is free to chime in.

What an absolute peice of Shit you are...

You and I are done Conversing... Feel free to Troll me as you always do.

I won't waste another minute on you unless you stop this Bullshit and Discuss the Images I Provided.

Your Choice.



peace...

 

[xotoxi]

I personally feel that the description of "sexual intercourse" on pages 35-36 is going overboard.

I think it should focus on the simple science of the act...insertion of sperm by the male into the female so that the egg can be fertilized.

Calling it "making love" and discussing the "emotional aspects" of the act is, in my opinion, inappropriate for a science curriculum.

 

[Ravi]

I personally feel that the description of "sexual intercourse" on pages 35-36 is going overboard.

I think it should focus on the simple science of the act...insertion of sperm by the male into the female so that the egg can be fertilized.

Calling it "making love" and discussing the "emotional aspects" of the act is, in my opinion, inappropriate for a science curriculum.

Would it be better to describe it as just a fun activity than making love?

So, is this pamphlet teaching children intercourse in your view? Also, is the title page as presented by mal in the OP?

 

[xotoxi]

I personally feel that the description of "sexual intercourse" on pages 35-36 is going overboard.

I think it should focus on the simple science of the act...insertion of sperm by the male into the female so that the egg can be fertilized.

Calling it "making love" and discussing the "emotional aspects" of the act is, in my opinion, inappropriate for a science curriculum.

Would it be better to describe it as just a fun activity than making love?

So, is this pamphlet teaching children intercourse in your view? Also, is the title page as presented by mal in the OP?

No. It is not teaching them intercourse. But it is going a little further than I would in describing a natural interaction that occurs between two animals.

 

[geauxtohell]

I personally feel that the description of "sexual intercourse" on pages 35-36 is going overboard.

I think it should focus on the simple science of the act...insertion of sperm by the male into the female so that the egg can be fertilized.

Calling it "making love" and discussing the "emotional aspects" of the act is, in my opinion, inappropriate for a science curriculum.

That's how I feel too. Sex ed should be taught as pure biology with a smattering microbiology and preventative medicine.

 

[Ravi]

I personally feel that the description of "sexual intercourse" on pages 35-36 is going overboard.

I think it should focus on the simple science of the act...insertion of sperm by the male into the female so that the egg can be fertilized.

Calling it "making love" and discussing the "emotional aspects" of the act is, in my opinion, inappropriate for a science curriculum.

Would it be better to describe it as just a fun activity than making love?

So, is this pamphlet teaching children intercourse in your view? Also, is the title page as presented by mal in the OP?

No. It is not teaching them intercourse. But it is going a little further than I would in describing a natural interaction that occurs between two animals.

Fair enough...no moralizing, and it does sound as if an attempt at moralizing was made: making love.

I am glad to have been proven correct.

 

[xotoxi]

I personally feel that the description of "sexual intercourse" on pages 35-36 is going overboard.

I think it should focus on the simple science of the act...insertion of sperm by the male into the female so that the egg can be fertilized.

Calling it "making love" and discussing the "emotional aspects" of the act is, in my opinion, inappropriate for a science curriculum.

That's how I feel too. Sex ed should be taught as pure biology with a smattering microbiology and preventative medicine.

Yep. All the way through the end of high school.

The kids will learn the "love" part elsewhere...or in college they can take a human sexuality elective which may go more in detail.

 

[syrenn]

I personally feel that the description of "sexual intercourse" on pages 35-36 is going overboard.

I think it should focus on the simple science of the act...insertion of sperm by the male into the female so that the egg can be fertilized.

Calling it "making love" and discussing the "emotional aspects" of the act is, in my opinion, inappropriate for a science curriculum.

I agree, they are teaching technical sexual intercourse. It is about how a sperm is delivered to an egg. That needs both a man and a women.

Schools have no business disusing or teaching sexuality. Discussions on Sexuality is where you can discuss all different forms of having sex.

 

[Ravi]

I personally feel that the description of "sexual intercourse" on pages 35-36 is going overboard.

I think it should focus on the simple science of the act...insertion of sperm by the male into the female so that the egg can be fertilized.

Calling it "making love" and discussing the "emotional aspects" of the act is, in my opinion, inappropriate for a science curriculum.

That's how I feel too. Sex ed should be taught as pure biology with a smattering microbiology and preventative medicine.

Yep. All the way through the end of high school.

The kids will learn the "love" part elsewhere...or in college they can take a human sexuality elective which may go more in detail.

Are you against high school psychology? Because believe me, they will discuss human sexuality in that class.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I agree about keeping it purely about the biology of sex and reproduction and in doing so, homosexual sex would not need to be included.

 

[ekrem]

Dream come true

 

[geauxtohell]

That's how I feel too. Sex ed should be taught as pure biology with a smattering microbiology and preventative medicine.

Yep. All the way through the end of high school.

The kids will learn the "love" part elsewhere...or in college they can take a human sexuality elective which may go more in detail.

Are you against high school psychology? Because believe me, they will discuss human sexuality in that class.

No, not at all, but it should be an elective and I agree sexuality should be discussed there.

I think the message about sex get's muddied in school by the issue being taboo and teachers who don't really want to teach it. Hand it over to the biology teachers and teach it as biology. All the other stuff can go elsewhere.

It's amazing what idiotic things high school kids think about sex that just boils down to bad information on the basic biology of the matter (i.e. "you can't get pregnant your first time" or "you can't get pregnant underwater" or "anal sex is a safe alternative to vaginal sex as far as disease is concerned").

Note: I have no interest in commenting on this issue for the sake of, yet another, Malcontent rant about homosexuality.

 

[xotoxi]

That's how I feel too. Sex ed should be taught as pure biology with a smattering microbiology and preventative medicine.

Yep. All the way through the end of high school.

The kids will learn the "love" part elsewhere...or in college they can take a human sexuality elective which may go more in detail.

Are you against high school psychology? Because believe me, they will discuss human sexuality in that class.

I would not be against that...however it would be high school, and it would be an elective...not a required 5th grade course.

 

[Ravi]

Yep. All the way through the end of high school.

The kids will learn the "love" part elsewhere...or in college they can take a human sexuality elective which may go more in detail.

Are you against high school psychology? Because believe me, they will discuss human sexuality in that class.

No, not at all, but it should be an elective and I agree sexuality should be discussed there.

I think the message about sex get's muddied in school by the issue being taboo and teachers who don't really want to teach it. Hand it over to the biology teachers and teach it as biology. All the other stuff can go elsewhere.

It's amazing what idiotic things high school kids think about sex that just boils down to bad information on the basic biology of the matter (i.e. "you can't get pregnant your first time" or "you can't get pregnant underwater" or "anal sex is a safe alternative to vaginal sex as far as disease is concerned").

Note: I have no interest in commenting on this issue for the sake of, yet another, Malcontent rant about homosexuality.

Problem being...most fifth graders don't have a biology class per se...teaching it as part of science at that age does not bother me. IMO, better for them to know the consequences of their actions before an ooopsie is born.

 

[xotoxi]

I agree about keeping it purely about the biology of sex and reproduction and in doing so, homosexual sex would not need to be included.

Agreed.

However, with the way it is written in the above scanned image, it discussed the emotional aspect of sex. This opens the door to describe the emotional aspect of all types of sex.

It should be changed to a discussion of REPRODUCTION..."reproduction is the insertion of the penis into the vagina, the release of semen which contain sperm, which fertilizes the egg, which results in an embryo, etc..."

If the book discussed "reproduction" and not "sex", then homosexuality would NEVER be included.

 

[mal]

Note: I have no interest in commenting on this issue for the sake of, yet another, Malcontent rant about homosexuality.

I was giving the History of why this was ever an Issue...

So Assuming that Children are Hetero or Homo Naturally, aren't Homosexual Children Underserved or Excluded when Taught about ProCreation, something they will not Arguably Engage in?...



peace...