Public schools should not teach prepubescent children how to have homosexual intercourse.

Some children will have significantly delayed puberty, but that doesn't mean they should be left out of sex ed.

10 - 12 seeems like the ideal age range, which is about when puberty is starting for boys. Girls will have already started in most cases. Puberty is a very long process, of course.

But you want them to know about safer sex and the existence of choices before it comes up, and before they are likely to be learning through experimentation.

Teaching children how to have homosexual intercourse is not a necessary part of teaching them about heterosexual intercourse.

Yes, but not teaching about homosexual intercourse increases the risks of disease and death among children, so I'd rather it be taught too.

No, that's a conclusion with no rationale.

No, it's a conclusion based on the increased risk of suicide and sexually transmitted diseases that I cited sources for in previous claims.

You cited a source?

Yes, here, I'll copy and paste:

http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html
http://www.ucm.es/info/rqtr/biblioteca/Violencia%20gltb/suicide%20in%20gltb%20youth%20implications%20for%20clinicians.pdf

The latter link is a PDF, unfortunately.

Why is this tagged with 'narcissism'? Inquiring minds hesitate to ask, but do anyway.

Eilonwy, see the claim that inspired this one.  There are other reasons too, but I have no time to explain at the moment.

The term "homosexual intercourse" is odd, because sex acts that can be performed by two people of the same sex are generally subsets of the sex acts that can be performed by those of different sexes.

Should public schools not teach about anal sex and oral sex?

Or are you just opposed to teaching that homosexuality is not wrong?

No, it's not that simple.  Teaching children that homosexuality is "wrong" would be like teaching them that autism is wrong.  Sexual psychology is a personal attribute, not a moral choice.

I oppose school curricula that perpetuate lies.  Therefore, I oppose teaching that homosexuality is normal — because it's not.  However, I also support teaching children that people with abnormal conditions deserve respect.

When I was a wee one, my sex ed class in 6th grade (ages 11-12 for those not familiar with the American school system) had an anonymous Q&A session, where we wrote on index cards and put them in a box for the teacher to answer. My question: "I know how gay men have sex, but how do lesbians do it?"

No, I didn't yet know I was gay (that was a year later). Yes, my awareness of anal sex was common knowledge among my peers -- after all, that's where I learned it. (And, sadly yes, my assumption that penetrative sex was the only, or most important, kind of sex was also a common assumption among my peers.)

The choice isn't teaching children versus keeping them cheerfully ignorant. The choice is teaching children in a classroom versus letting them teach themselves on the playground.

(And in case you were wondering, the teacher's answer to my question involved lots of hmm-ing and haw-ing, and eventually concluded with something along the lines of "Well, I imagine it's more a matter of intimacy, I guess".)

The question is not whether to teach children about homosexuality in the classroom, as Chronos suggested, but what to teach them.  I tried to be careful with how I worded the claim.  Implicit in the phrase "how to have homosexual intercourse" is a level of attention and detail that I would oppose.

Writing as an actual father of two boys, Rudy made some cogent points in the discussion about the claim that inspired the one above.  His comments are buried among lengthy replies by Chronos and Rachel, so many readers many have missed them.  Rudy responded to Rachel's advocacy for teaching prepubescent boys detailed information about anal sex:

Most 10 to 12 year old boys are at a place in their lives where they need reassurance that they are "normal" that they are grown up in a sense.  I cannot conceive of the confusion that would ensue in the mind of a child who was told of these sorts of things.  I also cannot envision a situation in which this discussion would benefit a boy of this age.  My point is that although I can understand your intent and your reasoning about wanting to relay this information to your child, a real parent would know that 10 to 12 is probably not the right timing for such a discussion.  It would probably result in intensified fear and confusion of what life should be like, leading to insecurity in their world at best.

To teach all children across the board in school of such things to me seems out of bounds for teaching institutions period.  To feel that there is some danger in not doing so is sheer foolishness compared with the questioning & insecurity it would cause in children of that age.  There is something to be said for the preservation of innocence in young children and to say different when you don't have that personal parenting experience is reckless at best.

Narcissism is the inability or unwillingness to value the perspectives of others.  I think that the advocacy of rigorous instruction of homosexuality for all children is an example of narcissism.  The typical gay activist seems to only care about the few percent of the student body who may eventually share his sexual orientation — with little regard for the rest of the students.

knappster, what doesn't make sense about your position is that the sex acts possible for homosexuals are a subset of those possible for heterosexuals. So teaching kids how to be safe during these activities is not limited in usefulness to those homosexuals in the class.

Rorek, you seem to be assuming that I support teaching children all possible heterosexual acts.
But I don't.  For example, I oppose including anal sex in the lesson plan for children.  Answering questions from children is fine with me, but deliberately teaching anal sex is not.

Why not?  One important reason is that it would teach children that anal sex is normal — which is not true.  Rudy provided further reasoning above.

The thing is that sex ed does not just exist to shape and mold kids' eventual sex lives. It exists to minimize their risk from sexual behavior.

Do you think there aren't girls across America whose porn-fed boyfriends are urging them to have anal sex? If anal sex is never addressed by authority figures, those girls have no facts about it. They don't know it's a high-risk behavior for STDs, they don't know that one of the reasons it's a high risk is ripping and tearing. They just know it 'can't get them pregnant' and 'is totally hot', because those are the 'facts' with which the guy will be presenting them.

Leaving the question of gay anal sex entirely to one side, I think arming those girls with facts is a good enough reason to admit that anal sex occurs, in a sex ed context.

If we also included a section in sex ed classes refuting the messages and myths in porn, that might be good, too. Whether or not teachers mention anal sex in front of kids, the internet is absolutely full of mentions, completely free of discussion of STDs, condoms, et cetera.

Do you think prepubescent girls have "porn-fed boyfriends"?  It would be completely unnecessary and sick for unusual sexual behavior to be deliberately introduced to children who have not even gone through puberty.

Teachers are authority figures.  There is a huge difference between a teacher introducing the issue of anal sex and a child asking a question.  In the former case, there is an implied lesson that such behavior is normal — which would be grossly misleading.

Of course prepubescent girls have porn-fed boyfriends. You still never addressed what "prepubescent" means or how old that can be. Nor how waiting until after a child is likely to have had sex or know people who have is more helpful as sex education.

Rachel, your first sentence is yet another one of your unsubstantiated declarations.  The second sentence is either a demand for someone to serve as your dictionary, or it is bait for more of your pedantic gamesmanship.  The third sentence is a straw man, unless you can provide evidence that children who have not gone through puberty are "likely to have had sex" or have peers who have.

Maybe you really don't know what puberty is —
in which case I suggest you look it up.

No, my point is puberty is highly variable from two year olds to 14 year olds to those who never get it. From anorexics and athletes who delay it. It varies by climate, genetics, etc.

Puberty is a ridiculous standard to use.

Your first sentence is yet another unsubstantiated declaration.  Two-year-olds, eh?  In what, 0.00001% of the population?  It's ironic to see your accusation of "ridiculous," because the implication of your rhetoric in the context of this conversation is that the experience of freaks should dictate (or strongly influence) public policy for everyone.

That's also why my earlier remarks about narcissism are appropriate.

When intractable conflicts arise over how to raise children, one option is for parents to pull their kids out of the public schools.  Given the biological impossibility of having children with a homosexual partner, it's reasonable to conclude that gay activists are less likely to have children of their own.

Every citizen has a stake in how the children of a community are raised.  But that doesn't explain why gay activists without children are so aggressive in their advocacy for how other people's children are taught.

I think it's because they sympathize with gay youths and desire them to be safe.

Because I am opposed to waste. This includes the waste of lives and brains.

And yes, I think that no matter how small the percentage those in the minority should not be idly shoved aside as irrelevant. I think that their point of view must be considered.

I think standards should be about what you mean them to be. Do you mean yours to be a physical-onset trigger or do you mean it to be an age-based one. And I think conflating the two is irresponsible.

I gave an age-based one and you immediately started talking about a physical-onset one that you have never gotten into detail on. You have not said whether you'd want to have classes for early-puberty onset kids without their peers and then have different classes for other kids as puberty comes to them, leaving the late bloomers to not have sex ed until they are much older than their peers.

Better teach the full spectrum of sexual acts rather than leave gay/sexually adventrous kids having a STI on the basis of underlying homophobia.

This claim, especially since it quotes Rachel totally out of context, amuses me greatly.

I'm a little irritated to see a straw man claim featured, actually. OTOH, it allows me to relive the days of laughing at knappster's transparent attempts to universalize his "morality".

Those were the days.

D'A

This is ridiculous. This isn't about safety or diseases or anything like that. Prepubescent children, though some might of course, are not going to be having sex. My sex ed class in elementary and early middle school detailed only reproductive behavior. Not oral or homosexual sex acts. It was to give children an understanding of how the body worked for all the parents that had neglected to inform them. There were other subjects like drugs and health and such. What would be the point of telling children who aren't having sex how to have homosexual sex.

Puberty doesn't happen for everyone at the same time, so you're likely to be teaching some prepubescent children unless you wait. In any case, I don't think teaching them sex safety early is likely to hurt them.

First off, define prepubescent. As I said, if you're going based on menstruation for a girl, you're going to have problems. I know someone who didn't start menstruating until she was 17. Do you really want to leave sex ed until after some kids have graduated?

Do you want to ask each girl, have you gotten your period yet?

Or are we going to just eyeball it and measure breast size? Maybe mandatory hip measurements.

With the boys... hmm, voice testing? Drop trou and let's see how much pubic hair you have? Ask them whether or not they've ejaculated? Maybe have them bring in a slip if they have a wet dream?

Strikes me as a remarkably bad idea.

On a side note, yes, some kids may be having sex before they're fully pubescent. You don't need to menstruate to have a sex drive, especially if menstruation comes late.

and you don't need to be fertile to get STDs.

It's pretty unlikely that kids will get STDs from having sex with one another unless they're really promiscuous. But even so, I think it's a good idea to make sure they know about the risk.

it's all about teaching good habits before tehy matter. most kids won't be at all injured by never brushing their first set of teeth -- except for the habits.

Excellent point.

once again a miniority gets pushed down.
kids need to know about homosexualiaty and should make their own decision based on what they believe.

schools only inform, its the parent's job to make all the child's choices

even if they ARENT gay then free knowledge doesnt bring harm