LogFAQs > #956593950

Entity13 posted...

I have long enjoyed the idea of there being porn made to actually inform people about proper care, consent, arousal, basic positions, etc., while actually showing the acts rather than the diagrams we got in Sex Ed in school. Do it right and make it available so that even those unfortunate teens in hyper-religious backgrounds will have a better understanding of how things do or don't work going into adulthood. This includes topics on STDs, LGBT+ awareness, and so on.

Don't target kids outright, nor bar what things look like just because kids might see it (because they certainly will thanks to the Internet), but encourage some proper education with some level of practicality. "This is what a condom is, what it does, and how to use it. No, really, we are showing you its use. Enjoy the show."

I will say the other problem (if I'm being serious rather than sarcastic) is that we kind of have to pinpoint the best time to teach a class like that, and unfortunately that may not be a universal window even for kids of the same age group.

I know that when I was in school, they did the stereotypical "separate all the boys and girls into different rooms and talk about their bodies" thing for me twice - in 4th or 5th grade we got the purely "clinical" lectures, and in 10th grade we got the "Okay, we're talking about sex now" class. But the problem is that most of us simply didn't care or process the information in any meaningful way in elementary school, and by high school most of us had already gotten our sex ed from other kids, porn, or some other source and mostly ignored everything they were trying to teach because "yeah, I already know all this" (I mean, if you're teaching this stuff when kids are 16 but they already know a girl who's a single mother at 14, you've kind of missed your opportunity).

So we basically need to maximize the point where the kids will be receptive to the material, but also not already blas about it. And we have to figure out a way to teach it that doesn't come across as either so clinical or so cringe that they immediately tune it all out. AND we have to be aware that at least some kids are going to be ready for that lecture earlier and some aren't going to get anything out of it until later.

And then it gets even messier when you start taking into account socioeconomic divisions and culture (if statistics on teen pregnancy are younger in urban areas or "ethnic" communities, does that mean we should teach those things earlier there, or would there be too much pushback against that for being racist?).

It might be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to come up with a single universal curriculum that would work for all students.


(The sad part is, the dream of sci-fi nerds and introverts everywhere that we'd eventually evolve towards a fully personalized education model where students interact solely with computers that teach at their own pace and at their own level of comprehension could potentially help here... but if the last year or so is any indication, fully isolated/targeted education without direct instruction or interaction with a teacher in person might be detrimental for a lot of kids - the last year or so of distance learning has resulted in a lot of problems. That COULD be because we weren't ready for it, and the infrastructure and planning in place was sorely lacking, or it could reflect a fundamental disconnect with how humans actually learn that will always be an issue. Not to mention socialization issues in general.)
---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family