Warning – this post contains accurate terminology. It thus promotes sexual license, apparently.
Is anyone else confused about the fact that continuously one of the objections raised to the sex ed curriculum is teaching kids what their body parts are called? We will apparently ruin our kids innocence if they know that they have a penis, not a wee-wee or whatever else kids call it these days. And even Miriam Grossman, the ‘expert’ paid to come here by anti-sex ed groups, is quoted as saying ‘the definition of a scrotum is not a health issue.”
I see legitimate issues with the new curriculum, what I’ve read of it. But this one is rooted entirely in emotion, not logic. A penis is no more capable of spreading disease or causing pregnancy that whatever else you want to call it. Grossman’s argument on this particular issue comes down to “Scrotum is a gross word. Lets not let our kids use it.” So instead they maintain their innocence by wondering what on earth to call a part of their own bodies? (OK, now I’m feigning ignorance. We all know a couple things they’ll call it. Good thing we didn’t teach them the actual words, right?)
I actually agree that our kids will be better off waiting longer to have sex than most currently do. But if this is for objective reasons rather than some emotional opposition to ‘sexual freedom’, then shouldn’t providing kids more information make them more likely to come to those conclusions? Maybe they should learn more about the cervix, as Grossman suggests, because generally knowing more is better than knowing less. In fact, the cervix was part of long list of things (electrolytes and abortion are other notable examples) of things I felt like I should have learned about in health class, but didn’t. But by the same token, deliberately withholding information does not serve anyone.
And one last thing – last I checked, the IR is readily available to kids of all ages, generally in their classrooms. So maybe now their innocence on these matters is a bit of a moot point, eh?