Homeschoolers on Sex-ed

[Patroclus]

For all of you homeschoolers out there, how do you deal with the issue of sex-ed. When I was homeschooled, my parents never discussed it (even the mechanics) except to say "don't have sex until you are married."

What are your strategies?

[Sher]

... Full disclosure of biological functions coupled with full admonishments to follow God's commands for sexual relations only within marriage

... explanation of abominations to God's commands ... as needed



But keep in mind that my son is a teenager ... I do NOT advocate telling children more than they are ready to hear at a young age ... before they are mature enough to process it.

But if we don't teach them ... like everything else ... they will only learn it "on the streets" ... and usually wrong information, at that.

[Patroclus]

Yeah, I wish I had known about sex before I hit adolescence. At least I would have known what to expect. The closest I got to any help on the matter was my dad giveing me a lesson in male hygeine.

I figured out the mechanincs of sex when watching Apollo 13. It is funny, but when the lander and the command module docked, I realized what went on. Suddenly all those electrical references to male and femal ends of headphone jacks made sense.

I love my parents dearly. But that is no way to learn.

[Undomiel]

Today @ 09:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126188#post126188)
Patroclus:

Yeah, I wish I had known about sex before I hit adolescence. At least I would have known what to expect. The closest I got to any help on the matter was my dad giveing me a lesson in male hygeine.

I figured out the mechanincs of sex when watching Apollo 13. It is funny, but when the lander and the command module docked, I realized what went on. Suddenly all those electrical references to male and femal ends of headphone jacks made sense.

I love my parents dearly. But that is no way to learn.

:rofl:

I homeschool all three of my kids. I did the same as Sher. I taught them about it when they were ready to know. And included a few dozen speeches about remaining virgins till marriage for all the obvious reasons.

[Sher]

Pat! :rofl: ROFL!

Sorry .... but that was too, too funny :teeth:

[Patroclus]

Today @ 02:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126196#post126196)
Undomiel:



:rofl:

I homeschool all three of my kids. I did the same as Sher. I taught them about it when they were ready to know. And included a few dozen speeches about remaining virgins till marriage for all the obvious reasons.

I am not sure that would have worked for me. Of course, I am the kind of guy that often resents preaching on things that I consider a "no duh."

I wanted to know about impulses and coping strategies (i.e. learning the psychological interraction between neuroses and sexual stress).

Part of my problem is that, since I did not have a very good model, but I do plan on having kids, I am curious to know how other people actually dealt with the issue. I have learned a bit in the last few years about the psychology of adolescent sexuality, and I want to incorporate succesful strategies into the home education of my own future children (whom I plan to homeschool through middle-school).

I would like to address the issue before my children actually start having the impulses, and look for warning signs of poor coping strategies (so that sexual stimulation does not become an addiction in youth or adulthood).

So, to be more specific--without giving necessarily reciting the lessons, how did (or do) you deal with issues like homosexuality, early peuberty (the secular trend), masturbation, inconsistent impulses, hygiene, peer pressure, peer misinformation, anger, pain, depression, imaginary audience, self-assurance, sexual identity (awareness), patience, platonic loving techniques (a-sexual), mate selection, secular influences (media, peers, people walking down the street half-naked), modesty, self-protection, rape risks, birth control (Catholic argument vs. Protestant argument and secular argument), abortion, population, venereal disease, The AIDS epidemic, role-models, monogamy, dating/ courting, age relations, the importance of same-sex friendships, co-dependency, fashion, pregnancy, sexually active peers, peers with sex-related issues (i.e. Pregnancy, disease, addiction), abstinance, family planning and economics?

These are issues that I want to make sure that I try and cover with my children (whether formally, or informally). I was wondering what strategies have you, as parents, found effective.

[Undomiel]

Today @ 12:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127022#post127022)
Patroclus:



So, to be more specific--without giving necessarily reciting the lessons, how did (or do) you deal with issues like homosexuality, early peuberty (the secular trend), masturbation, inconsistent impulses, hygiene, peer pressure, peer misinformation, anger, pain, depression, imaginary audience, self-assurance, sexual identity (awareness), patience, platonic loving techniques (a-sexual), mate selection, secular influences (media, peers, people walking down the street half-naked), modesty, self-protection, rape risks, birth control (Catholic argument vs. Protestant argument and secular argument), abortion, population, venereal disease, The AIDS epidemic, role-models, monogamy, dating/ courting, age relations, the importance of same-sex friendships, co-dependency, fashion, pregnancy, sexually active peers, peers with sex-related issues (i.e. Pregnancy, disease, addiction), abstinance, family planning and economics?



I didn't dissect their lives into bite-sized psychology lessons. I just told them. They know about AIDS and birth control and abstinence and masturbation and so on. They also attend church and are in Karate. My oldest is a 2nd degree black belt and teaches other kids karate at the dojo. He plans on having his own dojo one day. So they have public interaction, athletic activities and discipline, as well. I'm not sure what you want to know?

[Patroclus]

They also attend church and are in Karate.

I think physical activity, especially in martial arts, can be helpful in developing one's physical awareness.

[Socrates]

Today @ 10:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127043#post127043)
Undomiel:

I didn't dissect their lives into bite-sized psychology lessons. I just told them. They know about AIDS and birth control and abstinence and masturbation and so on. They also attend church and are in Karate. My oldest is a 2nd degree black belt and teaches other kids karate at the dojo. He plans on having his own dojo one day. So they have public interaction, athletic activities and discipline, as well. I'm not sure what you want to know?

Yeah, and far better they learn from you than from a godless sex-ed teacher who won't be "judgmental" about fornication, or worse, actually say it's OK.

And just for the record, I did say LEARN--I don't agree with Pat's parents not teaching him about such things. But I can also understand why they would not want humanists teaching him either.

[Undomiel]

Today @ 07:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127495#post127495)
Socrates:



Yeah, and far better they learn from you than from a godless sex-ed teacher who won't be "judgmental" about fornication, or worse, actually say it's OK.

And just for the record, I did say LEARN--I don't agree with Pat's parents not teaching him about such things. But I can also understand why they would not want humanists teaching him either.


Reminds me of a song by one of my favorite christian singers - a guy by the name of Steve Taylor:

Sally's into knowledge
Spent her years in college
Just to find out nothing is true
She can hardly speak now
Words are not unique now
'Cause they can't say anything new
You say humanist philosophy is what it's all about?
You're so open-minded that your brains leaked out

[Patroclus]

Yesterday @ 11:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127495#post127495)
Socrates:



Yeah, and far better they learn from you than from a godless sex-ed teacher who won't be "judgmental" about fornication, or worse, actually say it's OK.

And just for the record, I did say LEARN--I don't agree with Pat's parents not teaching him about such things. But I can also understand why they would not want humanists teaching him either.

Yeah, I really do not like the secular stance on sexuality.

[Sher]

Pat, I'm not ignoring your question ... I was just thinking about how to answer it fully without being :blush: ... I don't normally talk about such things outside my family ... and close friends.

In my household:

There has to be an even balance with age-appropriateness. All things must be measured against Scripture as the final authority. Tolerance is not an issue ... If it is wrong, it's wrong ... but that doesn't negate loving the person ... just hating the sin. Some of those issues you mentioned have come/are starting to come up, some are a bit future yet, I think ... and some, unfortunately have had to be explained when a television program/movie went awry to what was, IMO, inappropriate subject matter too quickly presented to censor (and yes, I do believe in some censorship for age appropriateness ... this is not debatable with me ... soon enough he will be exposed to some worldly things ... and I'll make sure he is prepared, but not yet.)

For the ones that have, we have kept a very open communication flow so that they can be expressed. My son hit a major puberty growth last summer and this past year. He grew nearly a half foot, he has ... um ... matured in several manly ways, and he has started shaving ... which makes me feel ancient! :eek: So these issues will come more to a head in the coming month/years, and I plan to educate myself on how to teach such things ... both incorporating them into health classes and everyday discussions.

The most important thing, I think, is to show your children a healthy relationship in your marriage. Stressing that this is only within the boundries of marriage ... and explaining all the reasons why this is important (not just for health reasons, but for emotional and spiritual ones as well) ... is a priority.

IMO, one of the worst things you can do is not prepare your child for things that will happen ... I'm sorry you feel that way in retrospect. However, it is far easier in theory than in practice. I am sure they were doing what they thought was best. Unfortunately, parenting is a VERY difficult undertaking ... and while there is an Instruction Book ... there are no specific manuals for individual children ... most of the time, you are flying by the seat of your pants and praying your are doing the best for your child.

As you get older, some of these things you mentioned won't be as important ... especially if you now undertake the responsiblity to educate yourself. Parents ... nor secular teachers for that matter ... can cover everything. If they have provided a thirst for knowledge, and taught you the means to acquire it, you are ahead of those who are the product of public education ... an industry, in my opinion/experience, that doesn't care about much more than herding the children through as quickly and painlessly as possible. They often provide knowledge ... but not learning ... which is akin to the difference between hearing ... and listening.

I don't know if this helped you.

If you need more specifics, post more questions ... and I will do my best to not be :shy: and :blush:

Sher

[Patroclus]

Thanks, Sher.

One of the biggest problems that I have is that we are supposed to develop a healthy sexual identity, but even the mention of related manners is taboo. The most extreme example I can think of is John Ashcroft covering the naked statues in the Supreme Court. I don't like that guy.

[Sher]

Today @ 01:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129307#post129307)
Patroclus:

Thanks, Sher.

One of the biggest problems that I have is that we are supposed to develop a healthy sexual identity, but even the mention of related manners is taboo. The most extreme example I can think of is John Ashcroft covering the naked statues in the Supreme Court. I don't like that guy.

I don't find it taboo as much as embarrassing for modesty reasons. There is a difference between healthy expression/identity ... and the crassness that seems to permeate television/movies ... even most of general society ... in recent times.

I'll laugh at (and sometimes even tell) a slightly racy joke as fast, if not faster, than the next person. However, the in-your-face ... can't even call it innuendo anymore ... is a big issue to me.

Healthy sexual expression belongs in the bedroom of a husband and wife ... not splashed all over the latest magazine to hit the checkout line at the local grocery. I am by no stretch of the imagination a prude around my husband, and some minor joking around with close friends ... but that is where the line, I feel, must be drawn.

I hate that most women seem to have lost the ability to blush.

[geochron]

06-19-2003 @ 07:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127495#post127495)
Socrates:



Yeah, and far better they learn from you than from a godless sex-ed teacher who won't be "judgmental" about fornication, or worse, actually say it's OK.


Fornication is only "OK"!? Now I understand why you're so angry all the time! :wink:

[Socrates]

Today @ 10:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139700#post139700)
geochron, replying to:

Socrates:

Yeah, and far better they learn from you [i.e. the parent] than from a godless sex-ed teacher who won't be "judgmental" about fornication, or worse, actually say it's OK.

Fornication is only "OK"!?

No. Not everyone is a slave to instincts, despite the evoutionary propaganda that we're just evolved animals.

Now I understand why you're so angry all the time! :wink:

Not angry, just forthright :brow:

[Lazy Agnostic]

07-04-2003 @ 11:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139816#post139816)
Socrates:
Not everyone is a slave to instincts, despite the evolutionary propaganda that we're just evolved animals.

Not everyone is a slave to unhealthy suppression of sexual ideation. Not everyone inculcates their children's psyche to equate sexual ideation with demonic assault and "proof" that one is wretchedly evil.

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=144216#post144216)
Lazy Agnostic, replying to:

Socrates:
Not everyone is a slave to instincts, despite the evolutionary propaganda that we're just evolved animals.

Not everyone is a slave to unhealthy suppression of sexual ideation.

No they are not, if they understand the Biblical view of sex as God's gift, to be used in the place He has designed for it -- monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Not everyone inculcates their children's psyche to equate sexual ideation with demonic assault and "proof" that one is wretchedly evil.

No, only those who are ignorant of the Bible will fall into equal and opposite errors as far as sexual deviation is concerned. One is to deny that sexual acts outside marriage is sinful, and the other is to think that demonism is the cause.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Intimacy in the arms of desperation is pathetic.
Intimacy in the arms of mutual respect can be growthful and reassuring.
Intimacy in the arms of mature love is as close to perfection as humans are allowed.

I don't recall where but I read that those who have one to three serious-minded relationships (including intimacy) and delay marriage until late-20s or early-30s have the best record of happy unions. Even without cited research, I believe most folks would think that is likely close-to-accurate.

Imprinting sexual ideation and autoeroticism with abject guilt and shame is probably not helpful in discovering our sensual reality and forming a healthy model with which we can share ourself with a worthy mate.

[Sher]

Today @ 11:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=144323#post144323)
Lazy Agnostic:

Intimacy in the arms of desperation is pathetic.
Intimacy in the arms of mutual respect can be growthful and reassuring.
Intimacy in the arms of mature love is as close to perfection as humans are allowed.

I don't disagree with this ... however, intimacy can be found in many guises ... between friends of either sex ... or with a spouse. There is a big difference between intimacy and sexual relations.

I don't recall where but I read that those who have one to three serious-minded relationships (including intimacy) and delay marriage until late-20s or early-30s have the best record of happy unions. Even without cited research, I believe most folks would think that is likely close-to-accurate.

I don't fit that profile having married younger ... but I can see the benefit of waiting for marriage for that long ... especially if the right person hasn't come along yet.

But again, you appear to be equating intimacy with sexual relations. We, as Christians are commanded not to have sexual relations outside of marriage, with someone other than our spouse. But I have a select few intimate relationships that are very close and very fulfilling in other ways ... some very good friends with whom I can share anything and everything ... except sex.

Imprinting sexual ideation and autoeroticism with abject guilt and shame is probably not helpful in discovering our sensual reality and forming a healthy model with which we can share ourself with a worthy mate.

Living in a society that equates intimacy with sex ... and sex with love ... is worse than anything. Teaching our children suppression of desire outside of marriage provides that "healthy model" ... one that can only be found inside the marriage bed ... giving them the framework that we help them build upon ... to find ... and keep ... the worthy mate.

Sexual experimentation outside of marriage causes nothing but problems ... including possiblity of disease, possiblity of unwanted pregnancy, and possiblity that the person experimenting will have greater dissatisfaction with the spouse once they do marry ... thinking that they don't "measure up" to the fantasy ideal they've created from the sum of their experiences. Instead of working out issues ... and making the marriage stick ... they go off looking for what they think will be younger, better, and/or nicer to them.

As for autoeroticism, not all Christians agree that this is a sin ... even back to Onan, understanding that the message there was not one against the action itself, but of the disobedience to God.
Gen 38:8-10 And Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother." But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother's wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD; therefore He killed him also.
See "Onan the Barbarian: Was God Unfair to Onan?" (http://www.tektonics.org/onanbash.html) for more on this topic.

I personally don't agree that it is a sin by itself. It is the lust that may accompany it that would be wrong, if it is for someone other than one's own spouse.

[Lazy Agnostic]

So since we are no longer required to impregnate widowed sisters-in-law, shouldn't it be okay to masturbate?

We're no longer required to do other things which have a basis in ancient ignorance---such as circumcision or the "niddah" separation of menstruating women---shouldn't we allow our children to know that modern psychology considers autoeroticism a healthy tool?

Of course, as with other tools, things can become unhealthy if it gets out of hand.

[Sher]

Sher:

As for autoeroticism, not all Christians agree that this is a sin ...

[...]

I personally don't agree that it is a sin by itself. It is the lust that may accompany it that would be wrong, if it is for someone other than one's own spouse.

Lazy Agnostic,

Based on your answer, I'm wondering ... Did you even read my post at all? :no:

Sher

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145205#post145205)
Lazy Agnostic:

We're no longer required to do other things which have a basis in ancient ignorance

But anti-Christians still seem to have a requirement to resort to ignorant chronological snobbery.

---such as circumcision or the "niddah" separation of menstruating women---

But it's more understandable when once considers the importance of ancient ritual purity. Boundaries of ritual purity were very important to the ancients, western provincialism notwithstanding --- see the Tekton article about ritual cleanness www.tektonics.org/cleanman.html. And blood had a connection with sin and forgiveness (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22), so it makes sense that the Mosaic Law would regulate it. See also this post for some explanation about the Mosaic Law in general theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=43230#post43230 and this article www.ariel.org/ff00006f.html

shouldn't we allow our children to know that modern psychology considers autoeroticism a healthy tool?

Modern psychology is a load of crock.

Of course, as with other tools, things can become unhealthy if it gets out of hand.

And that's why parents should teach self-control rather than self-indulgence.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 02:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145209#post145209)
Sher:
Lazy Agnostic,

Based on your answer, I'm wondering ... Did you even read my post at all? Sher
Yes, I did, but didn't have time to answer. I was responding to the JPH "Onan" article---[I probably should have indicated that]

[Sher]

Lazy Agnostic:

Yes, I did, but didn't have time to answer. I was responding to the JPH "Onan" article---[I probably should have indicated that]

Okay LA ... but then your answer makes even less sense. Maybe you want to read the article again? :poke:

Sher

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 09:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145393#post145393)
Sher:
Okay LA ... but then your answer makes even less sense. Maybe you want to read the article again? :poke:Sher
Yeah, ok; I'm busy again today.

BTW---I don't find that poke icon to be the least bit charming.

[Sher]

Lazy Agnostic:

Yeah, ok; I'm busy again today.

BTW---I don't find that poke icon to be the least bit charming.

Okay ... but it's so much nicer than a :bonk: a :fight: or a :whack:


... :teeth:

(it's not meant meanly ... it's a smiley for goodness sake)

[automatthew]

Pat brought up that relentless canard about Ashcroft covering nude statues a while back, and somebody has to keep smacking that gopher on the head every time it pops up, so here I go:

John Ashcroft did not order a blue cloth backdrop to cover the nudity of the Justice Department statues. The cloth was initially requested by the White House for Bush's dedication of something-or-other to RFK. Everybody liked the blue better because it looked better on TV than dingy gray, so the JD functionaries decided to keep using it. Some bright cookie in Ashcroft's office thought it would be more frugal to buy the backdrop than to keep renting it, and the deed was done without consulting Ashcroft. Enter ABC and Maureen Dowd, ever on the prowl for innocuities to corrupt, and a legend is born.

[AtheistArchon]

Sally's into knowledge
Spent her years in college
Just to find out nothing is true
She can hardly speak now
Words are not unique now
'Cause they can't say anything new
You say humanist philosophy is what it's all about?
You're so open-minded that your brains leaked out

=0

- I'm speechless. You guys should NOT be left alone in this forum. Look at the stuff going on in here.

1. Whoever quoted this song should not be teaching any kids. Unless it's a class in pure, unsupported Gestappo propaganda.

2. Taking sexual advice from Socrates is like taking science from Socrates. Everything but his opinion is "Anti-Christian bigotry", and god will fry them... just wait and see.

3. "Because gawd says so" is not an education.

Modern psychology is a load of crock.

- That's what the $cientologists' Cult says too.

John Ashcroft did not order a blue cloth backdrop to cover the nudity of the Justice Department statues. The cloth was initially requested by the White House for Bush's dedication of something-or-other to RFK. Everybody liked the blue better because it looked better on TV than dingy gray, so the JD functionaries decided to keep using it. Some bright cookie in Ashcroft's office thought it would be more frugal to buy the backdrop than to keep renting it, and the deed was done without consulting Ashcroft. Enter ABC and Maureen Dowd, ever on the prowl for innocuities to corrupt, and a legend is born.

- So it is either Ashcroft or the Bush administration that has a problem with aluminum boobs. Okay, that's about par for the course I'd say.

- You have to admit though, that covering up the godless, anti-Christian boobie in question is exactly something that Mister "dancing's a sin" Ashcroft would do. It might lead to.... FORRRRRNICATION!

[$cirisme]

AtheistArchon:
3. "Because gawd says so" is not an education.


I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop spelling the word God that way, thanks.

[AtheistArchon]

I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop spelling the word God that way, thanks.

- You're right, I will stop. I forget sometimes about this kind of sensibilty... it's easy to forget it when you're a nonbeliever. =)

- I used that spelling more as a charicature than as a means to offend. I'm sorry about that.

- That being said, I still feel the same about dogma vs. education.

[Bob Jenkins]

My 2 cents I aprreciate all the posts that spoke of teaching sex-ed at home. It only got into the schools becauise parents neglected it. I am happy to see that home-schooling has reversed that mode of education.

My compliments to Sher for her courage to speak in this forum concerning the early issue of the thread.

Pearls for her!!!!

[Sher]

Today @ 05:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=156181#post156181)
Bob Jenkins:

My 2 cents I aprreciate all the posts that spoke of teaching sex-ed at home. It only got into the schools becauise parents neglected it. I am happy to see that home-schooling has reversed that mode of education.

My compliments to Sher for her courage to speak in this forum concerning the early issue of the thread.

Pearls for her!!!!

I definitely agree that it belongs at home ... and that parents often fall down on the responsibility.

Thanks for the compliment ... and the pearl ... Bob. That was very nice of you.

:shersig:

[themuzicman]

Just my two cents, but I believe that sex education should be a part of a larger relationship education, where you talk about dating and what it is, what it means, why dating 10 years before you should be getting married is a bad idea.

My kids know that sex before marriage is wrong, not just because we say so, but also because they understand the consequences of sex on current and future relationships, and the potential risks. They also understand that a dating or courting relationship has a natural course that brings the couple to the point where sex would be the next natural step, and if they reach that point when they're 16, they'd either have to take that step, or fight it for 4 to 8 years until they're married.

I think separating sex ed from relationships 101 is a mistake, since one leads to the other.

Michael

[AtheistArchon]

Just my two cents, but I believe that sex education should be a part of a larger relationship education, where you talk about dating and what it is, what it means, why dating 10 years before you should be getting married is a bad idea.

- What age should you be getting married at?

[themuzicman]

Studies say 23 to 24 at the earliest.

Michael

[John Reece]

I was not really ready for marriage until age 45. 'Lived happily ever after :smile: .

[Sher]

Today @ 07:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=158694#post158694)
John Reece:

I was not really ready for marriage until age 45. 'Lived happily ever after :smile: .

:cheers: Good for you John!

/ot How are you feeling? I've been thinking about, and still praying for, you. Hope all is well :smile:

[John Reece]

All is well, Sher. Many thanks for your thoughts and prayers.

Blessings to you!

[Sher]

Today @ 10:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=158772#post158772)
John Reece:

All is well, Sher. Many thanks for your thoughts and prayers.

Blessings to you!

That's so great to hear John! Blessings to you and your family too :smile:

Sherry

[John Reece]

:cheers:

[John Boy]

If it's not too late to jump into the topic, speaking as a homeschooler (two teen-age girls: 13 and 15) and having done sex-ed at home, I can tell a few things about my experience.

First, if your kids ask you a question about sex and you pretend as if you have suddenly lost the ability to hear, they will ask again. LOUDER. Spare yourself the trouble and just answer the questions the first time, the one they asked and not necessarily a whole bunch of other tangential issues, in an age-appropriate manner.

I've had to answer everything from "What is 'sex'?", "What does 'masterbation' mean" to "Who is 'general herpes'?" (Yes, my eldest misheard and thought there was someone called "general herpes", which didn't make sense in the context from which she heard it) and, pointing to the packages while standing in line to pick up some perscriptions when my daughter had pneumonia, "What are 'condoms' used for?" Each had to be answered, with each answer preceeded by a deep intake of breath and a LOOONNNNGGGGG exhale as I attempted to stall for time. Unfortunately, I was never able to hold my breath until I passed out, which would have been a great way to change the subject but, alas, never worked. Sigh... :no:

Here's the secret: Just plow on through! The more you discuss the subject, the less intimidating it becomes, the more freely and honestly you can speak about it, the more likely your kids will be to ask YOU questions about sex rather than someone down the street.

I do think Sex Ed. is vital. Even in the public schools. When I went, it was about as thrilling and exciting as thumbing through a "Gray's Anatomy". Trust me, kids aren't going through Sex Ed. in school and thinking sex is a great idea: they already knew that before they went to class. But, it is important for Sex Ed. to be honest, and even discuss issues such as birth-control and "safer" sex. It seems the more kids know about the REAL impact of sex, not to mention having access to birth control and the rest, kids seem to choose to not engage in sex until a later time or, if they do, they have much lower rates of STD's, pregnancy, abortion, and the other risks commonly associated with sex.

To compare rates, see this link:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.htm

Of course, it also helps to brainwash the kids. I always tell my two daughters that boys are yucky. To which they point out, quite correctly, that I am a boy. "I know. And I'm yucky. Just ask your Mom!" And so it goes...

Take care. :smile: