I was reading the archives of the blog Language Log, which in a post from June discussed the censoring of obscene language in newspapers. It contrasts the New York Times, which avoids the topic by using euphemisms such as "f-bomb" for "fuck", with the English newspaper The Guardian, whose style guide establishes that swearwords should always be spelled out in full when used in quotes or in the body of an article, though careful thought should be given as to whether the word is necessary and whether it will offend when not used in the context of a quote. Fair enough, I think. The post on Language Log goes on to mention other examples, but what do you folks think? Should newspapers, magazines and radio stations be considerate of their readers/listeners, or should they tell it like it is? And is there a difference between using a profanity in the context of a quotation and using one in the general text of an article? And within that, are there further divisions — say, could the word "bullshit" be used in an opinion piece but not in a news article? I ask for your consideration.
Sorry if it seems like I haven't replied to some of your comments. As the discussion facilitator I'm trying to step back from the discussions, such as in the last sex ed post. It would really help if I could get more comments and stimulate proper discussion, though! I do understand that the Blogger interface certainly doesn't provide for the ease of discussion that an h2g2 thread would, but it does allow people both from the online world and the real world to comment here. So comment, dammit! (Or should I not be saying "dammit" on a blog?)
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Monday, October 09, 2006
Sex Education
Hi, I thought it's about time we had another post.
Something that's often occurred to me in my experience of sex education in American schools is that while we often get "pregnancy ed", "STD ed" or "drug/alcohol ed", we tend not to actually have "sex ed". Other than how to protect yourself from pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases, small attention is given to sex. We are taught how to use a condom, but only in reference to the sort of sex that makes babies. Anal, oral, that kind of thing is never discussed, nor is the possibility that one might want to have sex with someone of the same sex. Masturbation is certainly not mentioned. And, of course, abstinence is offered as the best protection against pregnancy and STDs. The thought that teenagers might have sex for fun seems not to have occurred to the types who devise sex ed curriculums.
There are members of the religious right who would like to see abstinence-only sex education in our schools, and then on the opposite end of the spectrum there is the sex ed programme in Sweden, for example. Swedish sex ed is compulsory from second grade and contains a wide variety of age-appropriate material that actually teaches kids about what it might be like to be a sexually-active adult (see this article). I remember going to the doctor when I was around 14 and being asked if I was "sexually active", and I had no idea what that meant. Isn't this the sort of thing we should be teaching our young people — or was I just unusually naïve back then?
So how is sex education approached in your part of the world? Should the subject be left up to individual parents, or should there be standardised school curricula — and if so, how detailed should they be?
Finally, let me just state unequivocally that (in my opinion) a sex ed curriculum which teaches abstinence only or which doesn't address issues of recreational sex, relationships, etc. is being willfully blind to the behaviour of contemporary teenagers.
Something that's often occurred to me in my experience of sex education in American schools is that while we often get "pregnancy ed", "STD ed" or "drug/alcohol ed", we tend not to actually have "sex ed". Other than how to protect yourself from pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases, small attention is given to sex. We are taught how to use a condom, but only in reference to the sort of sex that makes babies. Anal, oral, that kind of thing is never discussed, nor is the possibility that one might want to have sex with someone of the same sex. Masturbation is certainly not mentioned. And, of course, abstinence is offered as the best protection against pregnancy and STDs. The thought that teenagers might have sex for fun seems not to have occurred to the types who devise sex ed curriculums.
There are members of the religious right who would like to see abstinence-only sex education in our schools, and then on the opposite end of the spectrum there is the sex ed programme in Sweden, for example. Swedish sex ed is compulsory from second grade and contains a wide variety of age-appropriate material that actually teaches kids about what it might be like to be a sexually-active adult (see this article). I remember going to the doctor when I was around 14 and being asked if I was "sexually active", and I had no idea what that meant. Isn't this the sort of thing we should be teaching our young people — or was I just unusually naïve back then?
So how is sex education approached in your part of the world? Should the subject be left up to individual parents, or should there be standardised school curricula — and if so, how detailed should they be?
Finally, let me just state unequivocally that (in my opinion) a sex ed curriculum which teaches abstinence only or which doesn't address issues of recreational sex, relationships, etc. is being willfully blind to the behaviour of contemporary teenagers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
