<p>
</p>
<p>Ah yes. No mention of healthy relationships, consent, how not to rape, etc. </p>
<p>And this is why we need books like this… your kids are finding out one way or another. Again, I’d rather it be from a textbook which has used research rather than google (which is where most find it). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I used a very similar book in a class called Psychology and Biology of Human Sexuality. It was a cross-disciplinary bio/psych class. </p>
<p>Romani, I was wondering if you have read the book. If you did, what are your thoughts - is it really a good guide appropriate for a bunch of 14 yr olds or is it something that was sort of slapped together for a more mature audience?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said as much on a forum and was basically booed out of the thread.</p>
<p>“Again, I’d rather it be from a textbook which has used research rather than google (which is where most find it).”</p>
<p>I think I’m fine with Google. </p>
<p>If it were at my kids’ high school I’d have them opt out.
I feel that normalizing fetishes further creates a culture where women expect to be objectified for sex and further feeds into the hookup culture at college.
How can kids learn to establish and defend boundaries if adults are constantly rolling right over them?
They mature at different rates, when they are ready to explore intimacy they should be able to do so at their own schedule; not when the school district decides they are ready.
The current health curriculum teaches the basics of reproduction, contraception, stds, etc. - no reason to go beyond that.
Being this explicit comes uncomfortably close to grooming in my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Health-textbook-too-explicit-for-some-East-Bay-5670660.php”>http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Health-textbook-too-explicit-for-some-East-Bay-5670660.php</a> says that “a handful of schools in Texas are using the book”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some colleges do have a health and wellness course requirement (e.g. Georgia Tech), although it is not necessarily obvious whether they use this or a similar textbook.</p>
<p>^^Let me guess - Austin? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would not be surprising if they tried learning by doing by going directly into a self-scheduled lab exercise without any preparation, as opposed to reading up on the topic beforehand (whether in a textbook or on a web site).</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>I used a very similar book in a class called Psychology and Biology of Human Sexuality. It was a cross-disciplinary bio/psych class.
*</p>
<p>Thanks, since my kids were science majors, their science classes had a lab component.</p>
<p>Unless the article cites which districts use the textbook, I won’t believe it.
Texas doesn’t teach about contraception in many districts, I have a hard time believing they are going to teach anything other than vanilla sex.
I did see that it was being used in several Texan colleges and universities.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but I simply can’t agree with using a text book geared towards adults (that’s what college aged students are) to teach 14 year olds about sex, certainly not when it involves giving detailed information about things such as the use of sex toys and and Sadomasochism. It’s not age appropriate. Period. Just because (some) kids that age are having intercourse, it doesn’t mean it’s incumbent upon the school system to provide them detailed instruction on every conceivable sex practice. These kids are well below the age of consent, but somehow it’s a good idea to talk to them as if they are fully capable of digesting and healthfully assimilating all the physical, psychological, and emotional ramifications of every way in which sex can be performed? Really? </p>
<p>Giving them to understand the biological processes behind the sexual urge, how those processes relate to what they are currently experiencing in their own bodies, giving them clear and relevant information that enables them to make good choices involving their sexual (and emotional) health, etc.—that I can get behind, but TMI (essentially, titillation) under the guise of being “open and honest” (i.e., “not hung-up like past generations”, and “religious zealots”)—I cannot. Some pre-schoolers and six year olds are being exposed to porn in their home environments, but does that mean all kids in that age group should be given a “health unit” on S&M, too? </p>
<p>I’d be behind a course that taught about respecting yourself and others, mutual consent, good choices regarding sexual and emotional health, etc. I question whether “how not to rape” is something that needs to be addressed as such–sounds like a class in how all males are rapists unless restrained, to me–because I believe that educating them about mutual respect, mutual consent, and care covers the core issue. I think that the message they get from the media is all about LACK of respect for self and others, and lack of care for self and others: sheer objectification. That is what needs to be counteracted. A healthy and mutually satisfying sexual relationship should be presented as a positive and healthy thing. I really don’t think covering bondage and sex toys is warranted, especially for 14 yr olds.</p>
<p>If the high school and junior high school kids are not learning about sex from a textbook, they are certainly learning about it from other sources, like the radio:</p>
<p><a href=“Why do college applications ask about sexual orientation? - #8 by MrMom62 - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums”>Why do college applications ask about sexual orientation? - #8 by MrMom62 - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums;
<p>The health curriculum in Austin seems more fitness based than leather & lace.
<a href=“http://curriculum.austinisd.org/pe_health/hs/pe/less_supp.html#FPF”>http://curriculum.austinisd.org/pe_health/hs/pe/less_supp.html#FPF</a></p>
<p>^ It’s worth noting that the teen pregnancy rate in Austin is much higher than that in Fremont <em>shrug</em> </p>
<p>(Though, in keeping with every known reputable piece of research I’ve ever seen, Austin’s teen pregnancy rate went down when they switch to comprehensive sex ed. Go figure.) </p>
<p>Austin and Fremont have next to nothing in common, though. Cultural issues are not a small part of teen pregnancy rates.</p>
<p>I wonder where the idea is coming from that all 14-year-olds are talking about or are even interested in these topics. Maybe times have changed since my high school and college days. I doubt it though. I had a very diverse group of friends in high school. My best friends and suitemates in college were from the U.S. but different regions of the country (Northeast, Midwest). Except for one girl, none were very religious. However, none of them were even remotely interested in taking a class like the one described in this book. </p>
<p>And yes, maybe kids like that are in the minority. These were kids that really weren’t into dating or boys (except for one girl, no one had a boyfriend in high school) - there were no late night conversations about who was ‘hot’ or anything like that. Again, this may be a minority, but it’s a sizable enough minority, and I don’t think these kids should be forced into a class like that against their will.</p>
<p>My high school friends would have been horrified, especially at 14. I guess the arguement could be made that they were secretly thinking about all these issues and just pretending, but I doubt it. I certainly would not have been remotely interested or ready for a class like this (but hey, I wouldn’t want to take a class like this now). I am young enough to remember myself at 14. I was a kid. I remember my teammates at that age too. Specifically, when a senior girl on the team talked about going to 3rd base with her boyfriend. First of all, the conversation was not at all graphic. But even so my 14-year-old teammates were pretty shocked. Some didn’t even know what bases were. And this was just a regular, suburban high school. No, I don’t think people should be pushed into this hightened sexual awareness before they are ready.</p>
<p>By college, I don’t think people would have been horriefied, like they would be at 14, but I could see a number of people not wanting to take a class like that, given the choice.</p>
<p>Again, I have no problem with people getting information or pointed to additional resources, IF they want/need the info. I don’t even mind a general discussion, saying, hey, these are some of the things that are out there, and you can get additional info here. But this is too much. I do have a huge issue with people being forced into a class like this. I am very happy I am not in high school any more. Geez.</p>
<p>P.S. Despite the fact that my high school had just a regular sex ed class (which I think is what’s approproate), we had a very low pregnancy rate and no STD outbreaks, as far as I know.</p>
<p>FWIW, here’s a table of contents I found on the publisher’s website. It might help the discussion to realize that the book is about more things than sex. My impression is that the concern in Fremont is less about the course curriculum and more about the fact that students have in their possession a few pages that might cross some sort of line.
</p>
<p>It’s a peculiarly American thing to focus on the sexual aspect of anything. (I’m speaking in comparison to other Western nations.) Not about abuse of women but whether there’s a picture of a blank. </p>
<p>We went to a parents meeting for 7th grade, which was a long time ago, where the subject was sexuality. I made the point that many of the kids, particularly boys, had already seen more sexual images than I could imagine in the era when Playboy was racy stuff sold from behind the counter. And that’s more true today by a factor of a million. Back when I went to that meeting, internet connections were slower and vids tended to be low quality and often behind paywalls. Now you can see anything, literally any kind of sexuality you can imagine with the possible exception of actual child pornography, with a basic web search. And it’s free. </p>
<p>In that vein, I take this kind of educational material as an assist to those students who might otherwise be taken advantage of by those who are more sexualized by exposure to imagery. If they don’t want to see it, fine. If they do, it’s not titillating by the standards of today so it won’t matter to any of the kids who look at stuff now.</p>
<p>Well, I think a class about bondage and vibrators would be incredibly uncomfortable for your average group of 14 year olds. Mostly though I just think it’s unnecessary. There is no information shortage for anyone who needs or wants this information. And, yeah, it’s free.</p>
<p>^ Which is EXACTLY the problem. There is NO shortage of information- and most of that information is complete bunk or coming from unrealistic porn sites. </p>
<p>The information isn’t being taught- it’s just there. Kind of like the internet. The difference is that the textbook is probably well-researched and has accurate information IF THE KIDS WANT IT rather than having them turn to ■■■■■■■. </p>