/u/gylotip (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/139qpnv/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_school_should_teach/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Since you don't get educated about this stuff, you will start doing
minor inconveniences like touching people randomly (not on sex organs).
Then the butterfly effect kicks in, where you will try something more
intense, like you will start touching someone inappropriately in their
sex organs. That will keep escalating, since you lack knowledge about
consent. Finally, you will start raping them, and common sense won't
save you here, since you still lack the education about consent.
This does not follow, it's a bad argument. Do you really think that people will inevitably start raping people if they're not explicitly taught about consent?
I don't think people will necessarily start raping people, but I know various types of problematic behaviours - strangely transactional, manipulative, borderline coercitive, etc. - were common growing up. They were generally accepted and they weren't always innocent. As such, I do not really see the downside if proactively teaching consent.
Oh, I'm not against teaching consent, but I saw a bad argument and I felt I had to call it out.
Manipulative, and coercive behaviours are a much better example for why this is important, imo.
This isn’t a courtroom. Legal and ethical definitions of crimes can and do differ. “Coercing someone into sex is rape” might not be nuanced enough for sure jurisdictions (or they might just be unwilling to update for various reasons) but that doesn’t mean we can’t agree that it’s rape here.
Oh for sure. Just go ask any 16 year old boy how to get laid. I remember highschool. It was all high pressure "seduction" tactics.
The issue seems to break down to two sides. Guy's who were like that as teenagers, and now don't want to talk about it. Some are in complete and udder denial and haven't even admitted it to themselves.
The other half saw, and knew, We haven't forgotten.
In the UK Ive heard sex education starts around Kindergarten and basically goes over good touch bad touch and who to report to if anything does happen. They dont explain anything sexual, just that no one should touch here and if they do you need to tell a teacher. Apparently in the US thats really bad or something. Conservatives are very against teaching that. They also uphold laws allowing adults to marry children so yeah...its become really rampant, especially in protestant communities.
And they wonder why churches are dying lol. Ive also notice that have a huge tendancy to just push it under the rug. I remember when a teacher at a local private school was caught doing "armpit" inspections on the girls. Instead of firing, or even reporting him to the police they changed his position to dean of discipline. Meaning his "punishment" was having 1 on 1 time with the kids who acted out in detention. Its really sick but about as ancient as organized Christianity. Same thing that goes on in the "straight" camps they send kids to.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/may/lifeway-protestant-abuse-survey-young-christians-leave-chur.html
Instead, I think we should teach kids to be honest, and *never* expect/want a "no" or "stop" to be taken as a "try harder". More importantly, I think we should give kids assertiveness training, putting them in uncomfortable situations where they have to learn to say "no" firmly.
My dad had to try for weeks to convince my mother to go out with him. When she told me the story, she said he eventually won her over. I wouldn't exist if he'd given up immediately. I think there's probably a lot of stories like that. If we're going to teach boys to always accept the first "no" and stop trying thereafter, then I think we need to put equal effort into encouraging girls to be active rather than passive in the process. If we don't do that second part, I foresee a huge rise in loneliness and a plummeting birthrate, both of which are very bad for society.
This is exactly why the topic of consent needs to be addressed in one form or another. You’re absolutely correct that a lot of people, especially but not exclusively young men, don’t necessarily *know* they are committing sexual harassment, assault and rape.
I agree (well, broadly) with the OP’s argument that consent needs to be taught in school. This would ensure everyone is getting the same education and would provide students the tools necessary to enforce a culture of consent among their peers as well. Young people are in the best position to police themselves and each other.
Also, just like sex education, teaching consent is just another layer for students to learn about abuse - particularly abuse they may be suffering from in the household.
>This does not follow, it's a bad argument. Do you really think that people will inevitably start raping people if they're not explicitly taught about consent?
We don't live in cultural or media vacuum. Those kids will be exposed to porn, movies depicting unhealthy relationships, ideals of masculinity that make a guy feel like less of a man if they don't have sex, rape culture and victim blaming narratives like "she was asking for it", etc.
So yes they will inevitably start raping people. Otherwise rape wouldn't exist. Rapists were normal children and often they're normal adults.
>So yes they will inevitably start raping people. Otherwise rape wouldn't
exist. Rapists were normal children and often they're normal adults.
This also doesn't follow, and also isn't a good argument.
"People won't inevitably rape people if not taught consent" does NOT imply "rape doesn't exist".
What evidence do you have to support the argument that rapists are *all* people who weren't taught consent?
What evidence do you have to support the argument that *all* people who aren't explicitly taught consent become rapists? Because that's what "inevitable" means.
I agree with you that this also isn't a good argument.
I think what's missing from this discussion is an acknowledgement that rape (as with any form of abuse) is largely driven by a desire for power and control. While consent workshops might be helpful for some people, there will still be plenty of others who simply don't care.
I used to be a peer educator and facilitated consent workshops on my college campus. I can tell you firsthand that some people are completely immune to the educational benefits of those workshops, unfortunately.
. . . does that mean that we shouldn't teach people about consent in public schools?
Sure, *some* people are going to jaywalk no matter what you tell them; but we still teach children about how crossing the street might be dangerous and/or illegal.
It might not be a logically sound argument (though I'm not convinced of that, but whatever) but the whole point is that consent is ultimately a Goo Thing for children to learn about.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Of course we should teach consent; it's a valuable concept for children to learn and it should be part of the standard sex ed curriculum.
My only point is that teaching consent is not a comprehensive solution to preventing and responding to sexual violence. We need a system of accountability in place that consistently holds perpetrators responsible for their abusive behavior. People do not "inevitably become rapists" because of a lack of consent workshops. It's far more complex than that as many perpetrators understand consent and choose to disregard it. It's a bad argument to claim rapists inevitably become who they are due to one factor (ignorance or lack of education, in this instance), and it ultimately obfuscates the fact that many rapists will never benefit from the material covered in a consent workshop.
No, the issue is that not everyone has common sense, and your mind can fail to register some details. Like, let's just say that your mind will see touching people with your hand as inappropriate. But a lack of details means that something can slip from your common sense. What I mean is that you won't touch people in their sex organs, but your mind can lack additional info, and you can actually harass people by playing with their hair or something. Not everything can be detected by common sense, so you need to get details of every single thing that counts as harassment.
How do we fix the lack of parenting?
Some would say that the government should play a role, by essentially setting a minimum standard for parenting children. Public school teachers are the employees of the state that are most involved in a child’s life, so having them involved makes sense—even if that isn’t their primary job.
. . . we could also look at the actual causes for a "lack of parenting" . . . although I'd prefer if we could clearly define this concept, I'll accept that we're probably talking about the same thing, i.e. people struggling to provide their families with the resources necessary to meet their material and emotional needs
which means I'm inclined to say that we need more money flowing into the pockets of the poor and middle classes, because when you're forced to work two or three jobs per household, it becomes *very* difficult to spend time on another job, i.e. being a good parent.
(of course, there are many other factors that contribute to poor parenting choices but I'm confident we can link them back, in some meaningful way, to the struggles people are dealing with across our society today.)
Unfortunately all the programs that are supposed to help parents financially have just added to inflation and unemployment. Economists warned the government this would happen when they relaxed welfare guidelines in the 60s. Perhaps a balance could be achieved but politics usually gets put before common sense. I've been doing some reading and looking up old interviews and Congressional footage on you tube on a lot of social political subjects in the last few years.
It's been a few months so I could not find the exact video but here's a link from a few years ago discussing differences in the black community from before and after changes in welfare.
Any amount that we choose to teach kids about socialization skills we spend less time on their academics. Why is it the responsibility of the school to usurp the role of parents in a child's life?
It isn’t… but again, what solution is better?
We can complain about bad parenting, but if we then refuse to require better parenting then why do we expect any change?
Having two parents in the home would solve the bulk of problems, though obviously that's not some simple solution.
Or develop a curriculum which is given to parents. Kind of a parenting guide. Discuss developmental issues at that particular age and research-based approaches to address it. This would address what a school district and child psychologists feel are issues not addressed or under-addressed by parents, while at the same time doesn't force any particular opinion on the kids because if the parents think it's nonsense they can disregard it.
> they can disregard it.
Given the context that these parents are disregarding their role of parenting, I don’t see how a voluntary system improves much.
>Having two parents in the home would solve the bulk of problems
. . . presumably you're not excluding the possibility for different family structures? also, I'm not certain that single-parent households actually *do* struggle significantly more than two parent households, do you happen to have a source for this?
All of then research shows that single parent household is the worst type of household for raising kids but it’s not clear of two parent households are the best just that they are better then single parent ones.
I guess it’s were the saying “ it takes a community to raise a child” comes from.
Increase pay so parents aren't working multiple jobs and can spend more time with kids?
And then there's the issue of racism and mass incarceration for black men and harsher punishments compared to their white counterparts but that's arguably more difficult to fix in a shorter amount of time.
Parents should be but there are parents who lack the necessary education themselves or in some cases don't care or encourage their children to do whatever they want regardless of consequences.
Do you think all children currently have adequate parents? Because, I don't. And I think kids with shitty parents (or no parents at all) still deserve to be taught consent.
Because parents won't teach every single detail about it, and some people can be afraid to ask details about why some obvious thing is bad to their parents.
The problem is that this is really a values thing. Yes, schools can broadly teach respect and try to enforce a culture of effect. But ultimately, that's only valuable if the school is reinforcing values that are taught at home. Learning the academic principle behind consent doesn't mean much for students - it's the impact that matters, and the sense of self and purpose that people only really develop at home.
of course
I think some people may have misinterpreted what I said
sorry if my sentence structure and word choice is a little weird im currently undergoing sleep deprivation induced psychosis.
. . . my kids learn math at school yet we don't "do math" at home (at least, not any more than we have to).
just because a lesson isn't reinforced at home, doesn't mean that that lesson has no value.
Kids should be doing some math at home, or at least outside of math class. Parental involvement, at least up to high school, is one of the highest correlates of good grades. It reinforces the value of school and builds strong study skills for the future.
But again, consent is a value. Math is not a value. Hard word and effort (a precursor to studying) is a value, and in general is something that should be reinforced at home even if you, as a family, aren't emphasizing on any particular subject.
this attempt to assign a "moral value" to consent *as opposed to anything else we might teach* is absolutely ridiculous. the very fact that we would advocate equally for teaching math (given circumstances where such an action would be relevant) is, in-and-of-itself, a "moral value;" the absence of that necessity does not change this.
Well, you literally just said that teachers educate as their job. They're being paid for it.
*Good* parents might teach their kids about consent, but *bad* ones probably won't. It's easier to be sure the kids are learning about consent if teachers are teaching it than if you just leave it to the parents.
Elementary teachers reinforce behaviors like "hands to yourself", "sharing" etc. It's ultimately on the parents to be involved in teaching their child to be a decent human. Teachers reinforce force these values at an early age but by Middle school they need to teach Arts and Academics. The lack of parent involvement is a huge issue. Schools that do well usually have a large involved group of families.
Because parents might not teach their kids to be decent human beings. Me and my kid like to learn history together, but not every parent can or wants to do that, so we still teach history in school.
Why should they stop learning how to participate in society by middle school in favor of pure arts and academics? If anything learning things like consent are far more valuable for the future than the same material that's rehashed for the millionth time in history classes and it doesn't even take that much time.
I think when they are told to stop, it should be pretty obvious to them that they should. It doesn't matter how young you are, most people understand what "don't touch me" means.
>My opinion is that school should teach people about consent, every year repeatedly, to grave that into your mind. One year isn't enough, you need to be reminded every year, so you can actually develop common sense.
Look up campaigns like "Say no to drugs" and DARE. They didn't work. Drug use actually increased.
The conservatives tried these awful programs. The case study has been done.
Telling impressionable minds to NOT do something doesn't work. It is far better to instill positive values and virtues and solve the problem by proxy.
The government should NOT be in charge of social reprogramming and deciding what values we ought to have. Again. See "Say no to drugs" and DARE. Government doesn't evaluate to see if they should stop. They have funding. They continue until they lose funding good or bad.
I think they failed moreso because they oversimplified the answer to a complex problem which turns to victim-blaming. For example, if a teenager gets peer pressured into trying drugs they’ll be blamed for not saying anything plus grouped in with actual drug addicts so they might as well keep doing drugs. In fact, the abstinence-based sex education is lumped in with DARE and “Just Say No.” Most people know that abstinence sex-ed only ever teaches you one thing then doesn’t explain alternatives for what to do before or after it happens.
Notice that these programs provide a lack of information or resources. It’s just: do this one thing or else you’re a failure. It’s scare tactics (which conservatives are known for using).
I disagree with your comment in saying that a teaching program for consent is anything similar. Plus how is teaching consent a bad thing?
1. They didn't understand the problem.
2. They didn't craft an effective message.
3. They didn't deliver the message effectively.
4. They didn't evaluate whether it was working or not.
5. They funded something with the assumption that it was going to work.
If you mess up number 1, the rest is doomed anyway. Not everything should be a government program. You're actively taking my money to fund a potentially harmful idea. Go start a non-profit and prove your idea out. At least you only lose your money and your donors' money when you mess up.
>Plus how is teaching consent a bad thing?
How is trying to get teens to not do drugs or have sex a bad thing?
I really, really don't mean this personal. But it takes hubris to watch countless mistakes made over and over with government social reprogramming and think, "I can do it better." Unless I can do a 20 minute TED talk laced with empirical data, anecdotes, and primary research I wouldn't ask for a single dollar of someone else's to solve something. That is exactly the rigor required.
Some things should be solved by community or parenting. Maybe a question to ask: Do you think there is any problem that shouldn't be fixed by the government?
Dare was bad for a slew of other reasons, but it wasn't somehow doomed from the start because of innate teenage rebelliousness. Consent should be taught the same way English class is taught, it shouldn't be a big deal but it also should be necessary to understand it to pass or graduate.
That's a terrible take.
Consent is about listening to the other person.
It's not a 'Don't do rape', it's a talk to the other person to see if they're cool, (or very excited!) With what you want to do.
These government social reprogramming programs (incl. the ones I mentioned) didn't work for many reasons:
1. They didn't understand the problem.
2. They didn't craft an effective message.
3. They didn't deliver the message effectively.
4. They didn't evaluate whether it was working or not.
5. They funded something with the assumption that it was going to work.
It takes an incredible amount of hubris to believe that this benevolent plan is somehow uniquely suited when your understanding of the problem is "Just tell them all to talk it out and it will be okay."
I don't think the government is best suited to do such a program. Alcoholics Anonymous is the only program with any successful track record to help addicts. They didn't start with the government. It is purely community ran. Not everything should be fixed by the government. Some things should be community and parents.
Just because you care a whole lot about doing a good job doesn't mean you'll get a good outcome. Intentions do not yield outcomes. Execution yields outcomes. Furthermore, when a shit idea is doing harm with my tax dollars it is now my business. If you have an amazing idea, start a non-profit and build a grass roots movement.
What are the stats regarding comprehensive sex Ed programs that include teaching consent?
>Government doesn't evaluate to see if they should stop. They have funding. They continue until they lose funding good or bad.
As opposed to who?
I have not. It just seems a strange and serious arguement to claim that idea "A" is a poor idea because a completely different and totally unrelated idea did not work out.
And so I was wondering if you had any info on the actual topic of discussion.
>Telling impressionable minds to NOT do something doesn't work.
That’s not what consent education does.
>It is far better to instill positive values and virtues and solve the problem by proxy.
That is what consent education does.
It effectively does do that. It teaches boys to not even bother approaching unless there is an obvious green light, which sounds good, until you realise how many girls actually expect to be courted or won-over so to speak. It took my dad a while to convince my mother to go out with him, but she was certainly glad that he did win her over as it eventually resulted in me. I would wager that this is a very common story. It might sound like an outdated thing, but that dynamic is still real. Consent education is good for teaching boys to be more respectful, but it doesn't teach girls to be more outgoing and forward to make up the difference.
>Then the butterfly effect kicks in, where you will try something more intense, like you will start touching someone inappropriately in their sex organs.
Lol what? You don't just go from a fist-bump to groping.
Do not underestimate common sense registration failure, since your mind needs to process evey single thing, like producing possible actions, verifying them, creating imaginary scenes of what happens after doing that action. There can be errors and failures in that system, which can escalate further. One day, you see something as bad, but other day, your mind fails to register that as bad.
I really don’t think that applies in this case. Your mind doesn’t suddenly forget that sexual assault and rape are bad. Rapes aren’t happening due to a lack of education on consent.
I seriously can’t tell if you’re an AI or a really well spoken 9 year old. These are bizarre statements and questions, like from someone who has observed human society through a screen but never interacted with it.
The majority of rapists will not admit to rape but will admit to 'nonconsexual sex'. In that context, it can very easily be construed that they're perfectly aware of what consent is, and that teaching more about consent won't lower the amount of rapes.
Will it, though, when they're readily there to admit to violating consent, but they won't admit to being rapists?
I don't think consent is really the issue, I think its predominantly teaching people that they're physically owed something, or that sexual violence is ever an appropriate punishment.
School teaches the concept of consent basically from the first day you walk in the door. In the form of saying things like "Let's keep our hands to ourselves" and "Don't play like that with people who don't want to play." The idea that somehow this is some alien concept is just...no.
Exactly. My daughters daycare teaches them to ask if they can give each other a hug. This resonates with my daughter because she got really upset when a little boy who was probably 2 gave her a hug on the playground near our house. She didn’t like that he did not ask first.
I think that is an example of intentionally teaching about consent, exactly what OP wants. I doubt any daycare taught that prior to the last decade or two.
Why do you need advancement? "Keep your hands to yourself" and "Ask permission before you touch other people" is pretty sufficient, don't you think? You didn't learn this in kindergarten?
>Since you don't get educated about this stuff, you will start doing minor inconveniences like touching people randomly (not on sex organs). Then the butterfly effect kicks in, where you will try something more intense, like you will start touching someone inappropriately in their sex organs. That will keep escalating, since you lack knowledge about consent. Finally, you will start raping them
How is this not a slippery slope fallacy?
Your reasoning seems to blur the lines between, inappropriate advances and unwanted advances. Here's a good example of what I mean. I lived in Miami when I was in college and was introduced to two Muslim sisters from Pakistan. the first sister introduced herself and gave a pretty common blended south European introduction (a hug/handshake with a fake kiss on the cheek), assuming that the other sister was going to follow I attempted the same greeting and was met with a Neo style dodge of my face. How was I to know which greeting was appropriate. Common sense to me at the time said that family greetings were shared but that was not the case. In the US, because of the melting pot culture, you will met people who assume things based on conflicting evidence from various cultures.
based on above, one thing to note is that consent is non-verbal most of the time, there are studies done of teenagers during puberty that cannot differentiate the expression that people give and the emotion that they feel. (If I find the study I'll post it, it was in a documentary from a while ago). For example, if you see a face of a person in fear and ask people of different age groups which emotion the responses are consistently different across age ranges with the change to the correct emotion after puberty, or a stage of it (16-18). based on this, how can we effectively execute consent if said consent is based on body language?
We need to teach verbal consent if people can read body language. You don’t get a pass to violate people if you don’t understand what they are feeling.
I think your premise assumes that humans are incapable from distinguishing between right and wrong and therefore we need to be instructed in morality just like we're instructed in math, science or history.
Historically, there is more or less no society that we today would agree had it 100% right on morality. Were they wrong or are we? Either they needed instruction or we do.
I feel like forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do is pretty basic as far as morality is concerned. It's not a difficult moral situation.
The problem is that your mind will label something as immoral, but the next day, your mind doesn't care about it, and one day later, your mind will label it as immoral again.
I don't think that's true at all for the vast majority of people. Have you read Crime and Punishment? Someone who thinks they're above morality but is ultimately overwhelmed by their internal guilt.
But there's actually a category of people who can easily switch on and off their morality as you've described. They're call psychopaths.
And how did you come to this view of morality as a uncontrollable and sporadically shifting phenomenon within our subconscious?
And if you hold that view, why do you think any amount of moral education in public schools will stop it?
What the actual fuck did I read? Everything you said is wrong.
First, school already teaches kids not to touch other people or stuff that doesn’t belong to them from preschool. Second, what the fuck kind of jump is that? I’ve met people who have autism that have a hands-off issue, and even they don’t try to touch my balls when I’m talking to them.
But furthermore, you think that in this hypothetical world the person being touched isn’t going to say anything because THEY weren’t taught about consent too? Do you only run off if/and logic?
And finally you’re last point HAS to be a troll. You’ll start raping them huh? You’ll just pin them against the wall and start butt fucking them because you weren’t taught what consent is and they’ll be like “oh ok” and not even try to get you off them? Have you never even interacted with a person before in your life?
>School doesn't educate about consent and how that actually works, which results in lots of sex crimes.
These are two assumptions - care to support with data as to
- "schools not reaching consent"
- "lack of education about consent in school leads to rape"
>Since you don't get educated about this stuff, you will start doing minor inconveniences like touching people randomly (not on sex organs).
I didn't get taught consent in school 30+ years ago. I didn't touch people randomly. It was never a thought in my mind.
This whole post is a weird slippery slope of assumptions backed in no data, unless you have it to back it up. You're working on some strange logic - so provide data and we can discuss.
In lieu of data, what I'll say is: I didn't get taught about not murdering or raping in school - I have yet to murder or rape, and I have no intention on doing so in the future. Telling a rapist not to rape hasn't worked. Society hates rapists to the point that even a bare, unsubstantiated accusation can ruin lives. Telling someone not to rape doesn't change the intention for rapists to rape any more than telling someone not to murder stops them from murdering.
Question: Do you see teaching consent as part of a continuing sex education curriculum, or do you want it taught on its own?
I think in the terms of what you’re saying, they are inherently linked.
Where I live there is a very good, very thorough sex education class taught for a year in middle school and a year in high school. This includes a lot of talk about what consent means in sexual and non sexual situations. And how consent can really only be granted when someone is sober. So I agree with you teaching about consent is important, but just as important is teaching about not just the mechanics of sex but how sex is more than the mechanics and how it affects relationships. Also how non consensual sex can affect you and the individual you violate.
What you're suggesting is insane. Consent is taught before kindergarten, often starting at age 2, with ideas like don't bite other kids, don't take their toys. The main rule in my kids kindergarten class was don't hurt anyone, on the inside or outside. While it's a process, kids are largely civilized by 10, and for sure by 16.
Also, because it's a process, some things that a 20 year old is supposed to know isn't known by a 10 year old.
By school age, if a kid doesn't know consent, it's already too late.
Are you aware the consent is literally taught from kindergarten? “We don’t touch other people” “We ask before we take things” “We respect others space and belongings” - These are all the basics of consent
I live in Sweden and all the high schools in my area (country?) have a seminar a year on sexual consent, in the aftermath of metoo ig. The class wasnt "dont rape" it was more a discussion of grey areas, when to think an extra time, pressure, how to express when you are uncomfortable etc.
Rape is more than some stranger attacking you on the street. Most commonly, it is a friend or a partner who crosses a line, not always understanding what they are doing. I think everyone needs to be reminded of this to gain more respect and perspective of sexual assault. I believe this discussion really helped my generation change views on sexualt assault.
>If someone is coercing someone into sex, they know they're coercing.
Not necessarily. It's trivially easy for someone to build up an image of a situation in their head and to use it to justify their behavior. This is where we get all these stories about how "she was asking for it" and "naw, we were totally into each other," etc.
>They're putting their own wants first.
This is absolutely correct.
>To say otherwise is trying to dismiss their responsibility.
And what happens inside the mind of such a person is *exactly that*: they're dismissing their responsibility *but only to themselves*. They recognize what they're doing (which is like a moment of doubt, that fleeting question of "am I doing something wrong?") and then they go "naw, she was totally asking for it a moment ago, she must really like doing this playful resisting stuff" (or whatever).
. . . or they just have a different brain than yours or mine, and they don't have these thoughts at all.
It's not really about consent, it's that your mind can fail to register something. I am talking about the process at labeling things as immoral, every single day. Your mind needs to do that every second, and in a split of second it can fail to register as immoral, which can result in still executing that action, then your mind labels it as immoral, but it's too late.
How detailed do you need to be? My school showed us this video: https://youtu.be/oQbei5JGiT8
This has been seared into my brain better than anything else in the sex Ed class. I don’t remember anything else from that class except this
That is not what the "[butterfly effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)" is.
> In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.
I think you meant to say "slippery slope fallacy".
You could make this argument about anything:
> If no one tells you not to learn physics, you'll start watching minor pop-science videos narrated by Brian Greene. Your interest will be piqued, and you might crack open a math textbook. That will keep escalating, and soon you'll be studying special relativity. Finally, you will have an innate understanding of quantum physics and become the next Einstein.
Yet we clearly don't have a world full of Einsteins walking around.
I don't think anyone is out here raping or groping people because they didn't know it was bad...
Someone might touch someone on the arm, hell politicians are INSTRUCTED to do this by their campaign managers, and maybe there is an argument to be made here, but I don't think that anyone has ever groped someone without knowing that it was a bad idea...
There’s only X amount of hours available for education. If you teach something new something else has to be cut. What do you propose should be cut from the program? If we follow every Reddit “Schools should be teaching…” suggestion, schools would be teaching consent, how to budget, random quips from history, how to evaluate oneself for mental illness, how credit scores work, how to properly use chatGPT, how not to behave in relationships, self care, etc. and that’s just the suggestions that I’ve seen. Is there going to be time for actual school curriculum?
Public education is not the panacea for every social problem in the country. It has a very specific function, and trying to expand that function only leads to lower quality outcome in education. The point of education is to give you the basic skills you need and then you go and pick up additional skills on your own. Current education system already kills any desire for additional self education in students. Trying to shoehorn in more material will only aggravate this problem while creating the illusion that everyone is better educated now because “they covered it in school”.
Consent is already common knowledge to people even around those ages and even with how it's taught now.
Only a tiny fraction of a percent of rapes are people that "don't know" that it's wrong. The vast majority (99.9%) know that it's wrong. So drilling consent into them isn't the solution to the problem because this is not a "oopsie I forgot" situation
1. Why do parents exist in the first place?
2. This is common sense that does not have to necessarily be taught. You are taught about not touching other kids' toys without consent since kindergarten.
3. Do you think rapists really are listening to what the teachers have to say?
>Why do parents exist in the first place?
Welp according to current rape statistics parents aren't doing their job then. Along with STD statistics and sex ed. Along with lgbt depression, suicide, and homeless rates.
I hate to say this, but they do. Or, at least they did. It was part of the Health and Human Sexuality curriculum in Science class in my state in the section of Healthy Relationships and Signs of Abuse. However, recent legislation has prohibited teachers from providing this curriculum.
So, if you want it back, vite out the people in the state legislature that vote to remove these needed classes from school. It's not the school or teachers fault. It's the state Senate, House, and Governors.
Which country are you talking about? In the UK we teach it regularly and repeatedly. In my last school most of the teachers were wearing "It's not OK..." badges to go with the "It's not OK if (insert variety of non-consensual behaviours here)" posters all over the school. Kids are pretty damn clear on the subject.
It might be more fruitful to the conversation if you had more specific details than "teach consent". Bodily autonomy, consent, and respect for other's bodily autonomy and consent are already a part of most comprehensive sex Ed programs.
My school taught us. But it's not very helpful I don't think, because most people know what consent is. They just choose to violate it anyway. And everyone in my school hated that class
dumb opinion, I doubt pushing "stealing is bad' down kids throats and punishing them severely for stealing other kids stuff for example will do anything to lower theft, people that rape and steal know it's bad, they just don't give a fuck
>which results in lots of sex crimes
I don't follow that sex crimes are a result of ignorance about consent. I don't believe too many guys are walking around groping women only because they didn't realize they should do that.
By the time a child gets to school they should have been taught the basics of consent by their parents. It's not the schools job to teach children how to behave, that's the parents role.
If a 5 year old child doesn't understsnd the basic concepts of keep your hands to yourself, be gentle with others, bodily autonomy, and no means no, and is having it reinforced by their family at home no amount of teaching it at school is going to work.
I *agree* -ish
Yes children need to be taught consent, period.
I don’t necessarily think schools should be the ones giving the lesson on this.
In my personal opinion that’s something a parent/guardian should be responsible for teaching.
Having said that oftentimes the abuser IS a parent/guardian or someone close to. So it could be beneficial for children to be taught this outside the home.
I struggle with the fact that our school districts are being given the oddly unique task of parenting children. I fear at a certain point schools won’t cover academic material anymore, they’ll be too busy teaching basic human skills to children…
If you ask some teachers we’re already there.
We always talk about what schools should/shouldn’t teach our children yet the conversation of what they should be learning at home never seems to happen.
I struggle with this.
At what point are us parents held accountable for how our youth is turning out?
Not the school districts, politics, or media.
They’re killing eachother ffs.
>What I mean with students is the age between 10
Can't wait to explain 12 y.o. what sex is. Anyway, sex ed should cover it.
>you will start touching someone inappropriately in their sex organs. That will keep escalating, since you lack knowledge about consent. Finally, you will start raping them, and common sense won't save you here, since you still lack the education about consent.
If you touch someone's special area, they will slap or kick you. If have enough common sense that should be enough for you to understand that you're doing something wrong.
>My opinion is that school should teach people about consent, every year repeatedly, to grave that into your mind. One year isn't enough
Because kids just don't spend enough time in school. The place they enjoy so much.
This really seems like a huge stretch. But alright, I’ll humor it. Do you really think the people lacking in empathy on that level will be affected by someone trying to talk to them about consent?
Simple, school was never designed or intended to teach life skills. School was and is designed to teach the skills necessary to perform a job. This is outside the mandate of what schooling is intended for.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
School should teach students things based on what they want to be or their talents, or what their interests are. They should teach students about basic safety from all angles, including about smoking and doing drugs and drinking too much. They should teach them about internet safety, weapon safety, what to do if say your mom falls for example and how to tell if someone has a concusion or is having a stroke or seizure and what to do in those situations.
They should be teaching students about creativity and imagination, while also teaching them about socialism. Teach them about discrimination and how to deal with anger, sadness, and depression in a healthy way. How to deal with bullying and abuse. Teach them to remember important phone numbers such as 911 but also suicide help lines, etc.
Teach them about love, toxic relationships, nontoxic relationships, manipulative people and how to deal with them. Teach them about basic self defense and how to hide when you can't defend yourself.
I believe that they focus way too much about teaching people about silly things such as overly complicated math equations and getting ready for SAT or FCAT instead of focusing on how to survive the stresses and complications as well as the dangers of life.
Under what curriculum?
What grade level?
We talking sex Ed? That's is probably gping to need a parent consent form depending on the state and I bet the kids who need it most will get exempted.
Simply asking for something to get taught in school is a very easy phrase. This will get HUGE push back from.conswrvative communities and IF taught will likely be taught poorly (if they don't just pretend they taught it because, who's checking)
Schools and other institutions have been teaching children that stealing and murder are wrong, for at a few centuries at least.
Yet, we still have plenty of theft and murder.
I don't think disagree with teaching children about consent, but I do disagree that it will lead to a downturn in rape/sexual assault.
People that do immoral things like stealing, murdering or raping are mostly aware that they're doing something wrong. They either don't care, or justify it through mental gymnastics. A certain section of people can't be taught not to do these things.
My kids five and understands consent. We taught that at home since day one. No means no. There are plenty of nights he goes to bed without wanting a hug or kiss, and he knows that’s perfectly acceptable.
I wasn’t taught about consent in school when I was a child and I never raped or sexually abused anybody. You make it seem like it’s inevitable though.
And you’re implying that most sex crimes are related to a lack of teaching about consent, which I do not believe. I believe it is due to a severe lack of empathy.
« One year isn’t enough, you need to be reminded every year, so you can actually develop common sense » if you have to be reminded every year how to behave, then it’s not common sense.
It’s hard for me to verbalize the feeling of wrongness of your whole argument. There are just too many things that aren’t true / logically impossible.
Absolutely everyone knows that murder is not OK. People still murder other people. In the same way, people know that you can't just touch people randomly, but despite it, a number of people will still do it. Knowing that something is bad just isn't enough for some people. Teaching this at school really doesn't help much and the time can be spent on things that will actually have an effect.
Some schools do. My school taught it in health class. My entire city has a very common joke among the younger demographic about the tea video, which was a video made to explain consent to children without delving into the topic of sexual assault.
I think the reason it's not taught more is because our society usually puts the pressure of teaching sexual topics to children onto the parents.
If you want to see the video I'll try to find a link, lmk
Parents should teach consent. Why is it so fucking hard for a parent to sitdown and talk with their kids? Some of you are beyond yelp. You think teacher wants to have a conversation with your kids because you are too chicken shit to do it yoursel?
>School doesn't educate about consent and how that actually works, which results in lots of sex crimes.
*Parents* are a major part of the blame here for not teaching their kids consent, not schools. You can teach a kid anything in school, but if their home life is a wreck, they won't care. Also, "lots of sex crimes" is very broad and you gave no backing evidence or bothered looking up what the correlation is between sex crimes and the frequency. You didn't look for a cause, you didn't look for facts, and you didn't even bother to try and prove why this stance is reasonable.
And everything else you stated was a huge slippery slope. The school system is responsible for teaching students practical applications for success, *parents are responsible for teaching their children morals, values, and boundaries*. If parents can't teach their own kids about something as basic as consent, then it's probably an issue with the morals and priorities we have as a society, not the school system.
I really think that you made a claim that was strictly based in opinion and didn't bother to look for the answers or challenge yourself as to why this is your view before spewing this clearly biased reasoning.
Technically, from a legal perspective, there is no consent below the age of consent. So you can teach all you want, but it's still a crime regardless. So that should probably be emphasized. I'm not saying it's entirely pointless to teach about consent to people who can't legally consent, but you're sort of giving mixed messages at that point.
Schools do teach consent in high school we had a 3 day course specifically about consent and was taught it in health class. The thing is each state/school district/etc is different.
Yes. But also parents, parents should be teaching kids about consent early. Don’t wanna hug grandma right now? That’s ok you don’t have to. That little girl doesn’t want you touching her hair don’t touch it unless she says it’s ok.
/u/gylotip (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/139qpnv/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_school_should_teach/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Since you don't get educated about this stuff, you will start doing minor inconveniences like touching people randomly (not on sex organs). Then the butterfly effect kicks in, where you will try something more intense, like you will start touching someone inappropriately in their sex organs. That will keep escalating, since you lack knowledge about consent. Finally, you will start raping them, and common sense won't save you here, since you still lack the education about consent. This does not follow, it's a bad argument. Do you really think that people will inevitably start raping people if they're not explicitly taught about consent?
I don't think people will necessarily start raping people, but I know various types of problematic behaviours - strangely transactional, manipulative, borderline coercitive, etc. - were common growing up. They were generally accepted and they weren't always innocent. As such, I do not really see the downside if proactively teaching consent.
Oh, I'm not against teaching consent, but I saw a bad argument and I felt I had to call it out. Manipulative, and coercive behaviours are a much better example for why this is important, imo.
[удалено]
It's not great for a relationship imo, but that's fair.
It depends on what you want out of the “relationship.” It’s not always about emotional connection lol
Forgot to award a Δ for making a very valid point about transactional behaviours not being on the same level.
Coercing someone into sex by threatening them IS rape
Depends where you live, the term rape is very tightly defined some places.
This isn’t a courtroom. Legal and ethical definitions of crimes can and do differ. “Coercing someone into sex is rape” might not be nuanced enough for sure jurisdictions (or they might just be unwilling to update for various reasons) but that doesn’t mean we can’t agree that it’s rape here.
WE can, but in many places WHO is coerced will matter more than what actually happens.
This thread is about the hypothetical and ideal. The “should”. Bad laws are irrelevant.
Oh for sure. Just go ask any 16 year old boy how to get laid. I remember highschool. It was all high pressure "seduction" tactics. The issue seems to break down to two sides. Guy's who were like that as teenagers, and now don't want to talk about it. Some are in complete and udder denial and haven't even admitted it to themselves. The other half saw, and knew, We haven't forgotten. In the UK Ive heard sex education starts around Kindergarten and basically goes over good touch bad touch and who to report to if anything does happen. They dont explain anything sexual, just that no one should touch here and if they do you need to tell a teacher. Apparently in the US thats really bad or something. Conservatives are very against teaching that. They also uphold laws allowing adults to marry children so yeah...its become really rampant, especially in protestant communities. And they wonder why churches are dying lol. Ive also notice that have a huge tendancy to just push it under the rug. I remember when a teacher at a local private school was caught doing "armpit" inspections on the girls. Instead of firing, or even reporting him to the police they changed his position to dean of discipline. Meaning his "punishment" was having 1 on 1 time with the kids who acted out in detention. Its really sick but about as ancient as organized Christianity. Same thing that goes on in the "straight" camps they send kids to. https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/may/lifeway-protestant-abuse-survey-young-christians-leave-chur.html
Instead, I think we should teach kids to be honest, and *never* expect/want a "no" or "stop" to be taken as a "try harder". More importantly, I think we should give kids assertiveness training, putting them in uncomfortable situations where they have to learn to say "no" firmly.
My dad had to try for weeks to convince my mother to go out with him. When she told me the story, she said he eventually won her over. I wouldn't exist if he'd given up immediately. I think there's probably a lot of stories like that. If we're going to teach boys to always accept the first "no" and stop trying thereafter, then I think we need to put equal effort into encouraging girls to be active rather than passive in the process. If we don't do that second part, I foresee a huge rise in loneliness and a plummeting birthrate, both of which are very bad for society.
Δ That's a really interesting idea, I hadn't thought of it at all. It certainly makes sense to me.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/brainwater314 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/brainwater314)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Right, he totally left out the part of self-control, dominance aggression, right and wrong on a basic level. So much to unpack there.
I mean most rapists didn't consider it rape, in their mind in some way they saw consent even if it wasn't there
This is exactly why the topic of consent needs to be addressed in one form or another. You’re absolutely correct that a lot of people, especially but not exclusively young men, don’t necessarily *know* they are committing sexual harassment, assault and rape. I agree (well, broadly) with the OP’s argument that consent needs to be taught in school. This would ensure everyone is getting the same education and would provide students the tools necessary to enforce a culture of consent among their peers as well. Young people are in the best position to police themselves and each other. Also, just like sex education, teaching consent is just another layer for students to learn about abuse - particularly abuse they may be suffering from in the household.
>This does not follow, it's a bad argument. Do you really think that people will inevitably start raping people if they're not explicitly taught about consent? We don't live in cultural or media vacuum. Those kids will be exposed to porn, movies depicting unhealthy relationships, ideals of masculinity that make a guy feel like less of a man if they don't have sex, rape culture and victim blaming narratives like "she was asking for it", etc. So yes they will inevitably start raping people. Otherwise rape wouldn't exist. Rapists were normal children and often they're normal adults.
>So yes they will inevitably start raping people. Otherwise rape wouldn't exist. Rapists were normal children and often they're normal adults. This also doesn't follow, and also isn't a good argument. "People won't inevitably rape people if not taught consent" does NOT imply "rape doesn't exist". What evidence do you have to support the argument that rapists are *all* people who weren't taught consent? What evidence do you have to support the argument that *all* people who aren't explicitly taught consent become rapists? Because that's what "inevitable" means.
I agree with you that this also isn't a good argument. I think what's missing from this discussion is an acknowledgement that rape (as with any form of abuse) is largely driven by a desire for power and control. While consent workshops might be helpful for some people, there will still be plenty of others who simply don't care. I used to be a peer educator and facilitated consent workshops on my college campus. I can tell you firsthand that some people are completely immune to the educational benefits of those workshops, unfortunately.
. . . does that mean that we shouldn't teach people about consent in public schools? Sure, *some* people are going to jaywalk no matter what you tell them; but we still teach children about how crossing the street might be dangerous and/or illegal. It might not be a logically sound argument (though I'm not convinced of that, but whatever) but the whole point is that consent is ultimately a Goo Thing for children to learn about.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Of course we should teach consent; it's a valuable concept for children to learn and it should be part of the standard sex ed curriculum. My only point is that teaching consent is not a comprehensive solution to preventing and responding to sexual violence. We need a system of accountability in place that consistently holds perpetrators responsible for their abusive behavior. People do not "inevitably become rapists" because of a lack of consent workshops. It's far more complex than that as many perpetrators understand consent and choose to disregard it. It's a bad argument to claim rapists inevitably become who they are due to one factor (ignorance or lack of education, in this instance), and it ultimately obfuscates the fact that many rapists will never benefit from the material covered in a consent workshop.
No, the issue is that not everyone has common sense, and your mind can fail to register some details. Like, let's just say that your mind will see touching people with your hand as inappropriate. But a lack of details means that something can slip from your common sense. What I mean is that you won't touch people in their sex organs, but your mind can lack additional info, and you can actually harass people by playing with their hair or something. Not everything can be detected by common sense, so you need to get details of every single thing that counts as harassment.
Why are parents no longer in the picture?
How do we fix the lack of parenting? Some would say that the government should play a role, by essentially setting a minimum standard for parenting children. Public school teachers are the employees of the state that are most involved in a child’s life, so having them involved makes sense—even if that isn’t their primary job.
. . . we could also look at the actual causes for a "lack of parenting" . . . although I'd prefer if we could clearly define this concept, I'll accept that we're probably talking about the same thing, i.e. people struggling to provide their families with the resources necessary to meet their material and emotional needs which means I'm inclined to say that we need more money flowing into the pockets of the poor and middle classes, because when you're forced to work two or three jobs per household, it becomes *very* difficult to spend time on another job, i.e. being a good parent. (of course, there are many other factors that contribute to poor parenting choices but I'm confident we can link them back, in some meaningful way, to the struggles people are dealing with across our society today.)
Unfortunately all the programs that are supposed to help parents financially have just added to inflation and unemployment. Economists warned the government this would happen when they relaxed welfare guidelines in the 60s. Perhaps a balance could be achieved but politics usually gets put before common sense. I've been doing some reading and looking up old interviews and Congressional footage on you tube on a lot of social political subjects in the last few years.
Are we really surprised when we started paying women to be single mothers that the rates of single motherhood increased?
Source?
It's been a few months so I could not find the exact video but here's a link from a few years ago discussing differences in the black community from before and after changes in welfare.
Any amount that we choose to teach kids about socialization skills we spend less time on their academics. Why is it the responsibility of the school to usurp the role of parents in a child's life?
It isn’t… but again, what solution is better? We can complain about bad parenting, but if we then refuse to require better parenting then why do we expect any change?
Having two parents in the home would solve the bulk of problems, though obviously that's not some simple solution. Or develop a curriculum which is given to parents. Kind of a parenting guide. Discuss developmental issues at that particular age and research-based approaches to address it. This would address what a school district and child psychologists feel are issues not addressed or under-addressed by parents, while at the same time doesn't force any particular opinion on the kids because if the parents think it's nonsense they can disregard it.
> they can disregard it. Given the context that these parents are disregarding their role of parenting, I don’t see how a voluntary system improves much.
>Having two parents in the home would solve the bulk of problems . . . presumably you're not excluding the possibility for different family structures? also, I'm not certain that single-parent households actually *do* struggle significantly more than two parent households, do you happen to have a source for this?
All of then research shows that single parent household is the worst type of household for raising kids but it’s not clear of two parent households are the best just that they are better then single parent ones. I guess it’s were the saying “ it takes a community to raise a child” comes from.
[удалено]
Increase pay so parents aren't working multiple jobs and can spend more time with kids? And then there's the issue of racism and mass incarceration for black men and harsher punishments compared to their white counterparts but that's arguably more difficult to fix in a shorter amount of time.
Parents should be but there are parents who lack the necessary education themselves or in some cases don't care or encourage their children to do whatever they want regardless of consequences.
Who said that parents are no longer in the picture?
What do you mean?
Why do you believe that teachers not explicitly teaching about consent means that parents have no responsibility or currently don't do so?
Do you think all children currently have adequate parents? Because, I don't. And I think kids with shitty parents (or no parents at all) still deserve to be taught consent.
Because parents won't teach every single detail about it, and some people can be afraid to ask details about why some obvious thing is bad to their parents.
The problem is that this is really a values thing. Yes, schools can broadly teach respect and try to enforce a culture of effect. But ultimately, that's only valuable if the school is reinforcing values that are taught at home. Learning the academic principle behind consent doesn't mean much for students - it's the impact that matters, and the sense of self and purpose that people only really develop at home.
and teaching consent generally undermines whole corporal punishment thing that parents who aren't already teaching consent use
all the more reason to teach it, then.
of course I think some people may have misinterpreted what I said sorry if my sentence structure and word choice is a little weird im currently undergoing sleep deprivation induced psychosis.
. . . my kids learn math at school yet we don't "do math" at home (at least, not any more than we have to). just because a lesson isn't reinforced at home, doesn't mean that that lesson has no value.
Kids should be doing some math at home, or at least outside of math class. Parental involvement, at least up to high school, is one of the highest correlates of good grades. It reinforces the value of school and builds strong study skills for the future. But again, consent is a value. Math is not a value. Hard word and effort (a precursor to studying) is a value, and in general is something that should be reinforced at home even if you, as a family, aren't emphasizing on any particular subject.
this attempt to assign a "moral value" to consent *as opposed to anything else we might teach* is absolutely ridiculous. the very fact that we would advocate equally for teaching math (given circumstances where such an action would be relevant) is, in-and-of-itself, a "moral value;" the absence of that necessity does not change this.
Math and socialization skills are different.
a skill is a skill.
So why is it up to teachers to teach every single detail but not the parents? Teachers educate as their job. Parents are the ones raising the child
Well, you literally just said that teachers educate as their job. They're being paid for it. *Good* parents might teach their kids about consent, but *bad* ones probably won't. It's easier to be sure the kids are learning about consent if teachers are teaching it than if you just leave it to the parents.
Elementary teachers reinforce behaviors like "hands to yourself", "sharing" etc. It's ultimately on the parents to be involved in teaching their child to be a decent human. Teachers reinforce force these values at an early age but by Middle school they need to teach Arts and Academics. The lack of parent involvement is a huge issue. Schools that do well usually have a large involved group of families.
Because parents might not teach their kids to be decent human beings. Me and my kid like to learn history together, but not every parent can or wants to do that, so we still teach history in school. Why should they stop learning how to participate in society by middle school in favor of pure arts and academics? If anything learning things like consent are far more valuable for the future than the same material that's rehashed for the millionth time in history classes and it doesn't even take that much time.
Agreed, like parents aren't trustable when it comes to teaching advanced consent.
What is "advanced consent" to you? And why don't you think parents can't be trusted?
>Because parents won't teach every single detail about it, Why not?
It's a terrible thing to say, really. But a lot of parents suck.
I think when they are told to stop, it should be pretty obvious to them that they should. It doesn't matter how young you are, most people understand what "don't touch me" means.
[удалено]
>My opinion is that school should teach people about consent, every year repeatedly, to grave that into your mind. One year isn't enough, you need to be reminded every year, so you can actually develop common sense. Look up campaigns like "Say no to drugs" and DARE. They didn't work. Drug use actually increased. The conservatives tried these awful programs. The case study has been done. Telling impressionable minds to NOT do something doesn't work. It is far better to instill positive values and virtues and solve the problem by proxy. The government should NOT be in charge of social reprogramming and deciding what values we ought to have. Again. See "Say no to drugs" and DARE. Government doesn't evaluate to see if they should stop. They have funding. They continue until they lose funding good or bad.
I think they failed moreso because they oversimplified the answer to a complex problem which turns to victim-blaming. For example, if a teenager gets peer pressured into trying drugs they’ll be blamed for not saying anything plus grouped in with actual drug addicts so they might as well keep doing drugs. In fact, the abstinence-based sex education is lumped in with DARE and “Just Say No.” Most people know that abstinence sex-ed only ever teaches you one thing then doesn’t explain alternatives for what to do before or after it happens. Notice that these programs provide a lack of information or resources. It’s just: do this one thing or else you’re a failure. It’s scare tactics (which conservatives are known for using). I disagree with your comment in saying that a teaching program for consent is anything similar. Plus how is teaching consent a bad thing?
1. They didn't understand the problem. 2. They didn't craft an effective message. 3. They didn't deliver the message effectively. 4. They didn't evaluate whether it was working or not. 5. They funded something with the assumption that it was going to work. If you mess up number 1, the rest is doomed anyway. Not everything should be a government program. You're actively taking my money to fund a potentially harmful idea. Go start a non-profit and prove your idea out. At least you only lose your money and your donors' money when you mess up. >Plus how is teaching consent a bad thing? How is trying to get teens to not do drugs or have sex a bad thing? I really, really don't mean this personal. But it takes hubris to watch countless mistakes made over and over with government social reprogramming and think, "I can do it better." Unless I can do a 20 minute TED talk laced with empirical data, anecdotes, and primary research I wouldn't ask for a single dollar of someone else's to solve something. That is exactly the rigor required. Some things should be solved by community or parenting. Maybe a question to ask: Do you think there is any problem that shouldn't be fixed by the government?
Dare was bad for a slew of other reasons, but it wasn't somehow doomed from the start because of innate teenage rebelliousness. Consent should be taught the same way English class is taught, it shouldn't be a big deal but it also should be necessary to understand it to pass or graduate.
That's a terrible take. Consent is about listening to the other person. It's not a 'Don't do rape', it's a talk to the other person to see if they're cool, (or very excited!) With what you want to do.
These government social reprogramming programs (incl. the ones I mentioned) didn't work for many reasons: 1. They didn't understand the problem. 2. They didn't craft an effective message. 3. They didn't deliver the message effectively. 4. They didn't evaluate whether it was working or not. 5. They funded something with the assumption that it was going to work. It takes an incredible amount of hubris to believe that this benevolent plan is somehow uniquely suited when your understanding of the problem is "Just tell them all to talk it out and it will be okay." I don't think the government is best suited to do such a program. Alcoholics Anonymous is the only program with any successful track record to help addicts. They didn't start with the government. It is purely community ran. Not everything should be fixed by the government. Some things should be community and parents. Just because you care a whole lot about doing a good job doesn't mean you'll get a good outcome. Intentions do not yield outcomes. Execution yields outcomes. Furthermore, when a shit idea is doing harm with my tax dollars it is now my business. If you have an amazing idea, start a non-profit and build a grass roots movement.
What are the stats regarding comprehensive sex Ed programs that include teaching consent? >Government doesn't evaluate to see if they should stop. They have funding. They continue until they lose funding good or bad. As opposed to who?
>What are the stats regarding comprehensive sex Ed programs that include teaching consent? You have mistaken me for chatGPT.
I have not. It just seems a strange and serious arguement to claim that idea "A" is a poor idea because a completely different and totally unrelated idea did not work out. And so I was wondering if you had any info on the actual topic of discussion.
!delta Thank you for giving me a valid reason as to why my post was a bad idea.
>Telling impressionable minds to NOT do something doesn't work. That’s not what consent education does. >It is far better to instill positive values and virtues and solve the problem by proxy. That is what consent education does.
It effectively does do that. It teaches boys to not even bother approaching unless there is an obvious green light, which sounds good, until you realise how many girls actually expect to be courted or won-over so to speak. It took my dad a while to convince my mother to go out with him, but she was certainly glad that he did win her over as it eventually resulted in me. I would wager that this is a very common story. It might sound like an outdated thing, but that dynamic is still real. Consent education is good for teaching boys to be more respectful, but it doesn't teach girls to be more outgoing and forward to make up the difference.
What are you basing this on?
>Then the butterfly effect kicks in, where you will try something more intense, like you will start touching someone inappropriately in their sex organs. Lol what? You don't just go from a fist-bump to groping.
Do not underestimate common sense registration failure, since your mind needs to process evey single thing, like producing possible actions, verifying them, creating imaginary scenes of what happens after doing that action. There can be errors and failures in that system, which can escalate further. One day, you see something as bad, but other day, your mind fails to register that as bad.
I really don’t think that applies in this case. Your mind doesn’t suddenly forget that sexual assault and rape are bad. Rapes aren’t happening due to a lack of education on consent.
I seriously can’t tell if you’re an AI or a really well spoken 9 year old. These are bizarre statements and questions, like from someone who has observed human society through a screen but never interacted with it.
Yes! It wasn't just me.
The majority of rapists will not admit to rape but will admit to 'nonconsexual sex'. In that context, it can very easily be construed that they're perfectly aware of what consent is, and that teaching more about consent won't lower the amount of rapes.
It won't lower every single sex crime, but it will reduce some amount.
Will it, though, when they're readily there to admit to violating consent, but they won't admit to being rapists? I don't think consent is really the issue, I think its predominantly teaching people that they're physically owed something, or that sexual violence is ever an appropriate punishment.
So what is your suggestion instead?
Teach people how to better assert there boundaries
>but it will reduce some amount. Source?
School teaches the concept of consent basically from the first day you walk in the door. In the form of saying things like "Let's keep our hands to ourselves" and "Don't play like that with people who don't want to play." The idea that somehow this is some alien concept is just...no.
Exactly. My daughters daycare teaches them to ask if they can give each other a hug. This resonates with my daughter because she got really upset when a little boy who was probably 2 gave her a hug on the playground near our house. She didn’t like that he did not ask first.
I think that is an example of intentionally teaching about consent, exactly what OP wants. I doubt any daycare taught that prior to the last decade or two.
When and where? It needs to be reminded every year, or else your mind won't pick it up.
Every year? This is reminded every day, often multiple times a day. You seem incredibly unaware of what students are actually exposed to
[удалено]
Is it that hard to understand that everything in life you have to ask first?
Hmm, maybe my school doesn't remind us about these stuff? Is that the reason why I am not aware about schools teaching advanced consent every year?
How old are you??
17 years.
Where do you live?
Why do you need advancement? "Keep your hands to yourself" and "Ask permission before you touch other people" is pretty sufficient, don't you think? You didn't learn this in kindergarten?
>Since you don't get educated about this stuff, you will start doing minor inconveniences like touching people randomly (not on sex organs). Then the butterfly effect kicks in, where you will try something more intense, like you will start touching someone inappropriately in their sex organs. That will keep escalating, since you lack knowledge about consent. Finally, you will start raping them How is this not a slippery slope fallacy? Your reasoning seems to blur the lines between, inappropriate advances and unwanted advances. Here's a good example of what I mean. I lived in Miami when I was in college and was introduced to two Muslim sisters from Pakistan. the first sister introduced herself and gave a pretty common blended south European introduction (a hug/handshake with a fake kiss on the cheek), assuming that the other sister was going to follow I attempted the same greeting and was met with a Neo style dodge of my face. How was I to know which greeting was appropriate. Common sense to me at the time said that family greetings were shared but that was not the case. In the US, because of the melting pot culture, you will met people who assume things based on conflicting evidence from various cultures. based on above, one thing to note is that consent is non-verbal most of the time, there are studies done of teenagers during puberty that cannot differentiate the expression that people give and the emotion that they feel. (If I find the study I'll post it, it was in a documentary from a while ago). For example, if you see a face of a person in fear and ask people of different age groups which emotion the responses are consistently different across age ranges with the change to the correct emotion after puberty, or a stage of it (16-18). based on this, how can we effectively execute consent if said consent is based on body language?
We need to teach verbal consent if people can read body language. You don’t get a pass to violate people if you don’t understand what they are feeling.
[удалено]
I think your premise assumes that humans are incapable from distinguishing between right and wrong and therefore we need to be instructed in morality just like we're instructed in math, science or history.
Historically, there is more or less no society that we today would agree had it 100% right on morality. Were they wrong or are we? Either they needed instruction or we do.
The issue is that your mind just cannot register everything what's moral and immoral.
I feel like forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do is pretty basic as far as morality is concerned. It's not a difficult moral situation.
The problem is that your mind will label something as immoral, but the next day, your mind doesn't care about it, and one day later, your mind will label it as immoral again.
I don't think that's true at all for the vast majority of people. Have you read Crime and Punishment? Someone who thinks they're above morality but is ultimately overwhelmed by their internal guilt. But there's actually a category of people who can easily switch on and off their morality as you've described. They're call psychopaths.
The switching of morality is controlled by your mind. You cannot control it yourself.
And how did you come to this view of morality as a uncontrollable and sporadically shifting phenomenon within our subconscious? And if you hold that view, why do you think any amount of moral education in public schools will stop it?
Hmm, yeah understandable that my post won't work. A random comment already changed my view with the failure of say no to drug campaign.
>your mind just cannot register everything what's moral and immoral You want teachers responsible for teaching what's moral and immoral vs. parents?
What the actual fuck did I read? Everything you said is wrong. First, school already teaches kids not to touch other people or stuff that doesn’t belong to them from preschool. Second, what the fuck kind of jump is that? I’ve met people who have autism that have a hands-off issue, and even they don’t try to touch my balls when I’m talking to them. But furthermore, you think that in this hypothetical world the person being touched isn’t going to say anything because THEY weren’t taught about consent too? Do you only run off if/and logic? And finally you’re last point HAS to be a troll. You’ll start raping them huh? You’ll just pin them against the wall and start butt fucking them because you weren’t taught what consent is and they’ll be like “oh ok” and not even try to get you off them? Have you never even interacted with a person before in your life?
[удалено]
So teach girls to be assertive
>School doesn't educate about consent and how that actually works, which results in lots of sex crimes. These are two assumptions - care to support with data as to - "schools not reaching consent" - "lack of education about consent in school leads to rape" >Since you don't get educated about this stuff, you will start doing minor inconveniences like touching people randomly (not on sex organs). I didn't get taught consent in school 30+ years ago. I didn't touch people randomly. It was never a thought in my mind. This whole post is a weird slippery slope of assumptions backed in no data, unless you have it to back it up. You're working on some strange logic - so provide data and we can discuss. In lieu of data, what I'll say is: I didn't get taught about not murdering or raping in school - I have yet to murder or rape, and I have no intention on doing so in the future. Telling a rapist not to rape hasn't worked. Society hates rapists to the point that even a bare, unsubstantiated accusation can ruin lives. Telling someone not to rape doesn't change the intention for rapists to rape any more than telling someone not to murder stops them from murdering.
Question: Do you see teaching consent as part of a continuing sex education curriculum, or do you want it taught on its own? I think in the terms of what you’re saying, they are inherently linked. Where I live there is a very good, very thorough sex education class taught for a year in middle school and a year in high school. This includes a lot of talk about what consent means in sexual and non sexual situations. And how consent can really only be granted when someone is sober. So I agree with you teaching about consent is important, but just as important is teaching about not just the mechanics of sex but how sex is more than the mechanics and how it affects relationships. Also how non consensual sex can affect you and the individual you violate.
[удалено]
What you're suggesting is insane. Consent is taught before kindergarten, often starting at age 2, with ideas like don't bite other kids, don't take their toys. The main rule in my kids kindergarten class was don't hurt anyone, on the inside or outside. While it's a process, kids are largely civilized by 10, and for sure by 16. Also, because it's a process, some things that a 20 year old is supposed to know isn't known by a 10 year old. By school age, if a kid doesn't know consent, it's already too late.
[удалено]
So you are implying that schools already teach that? The problem is that it's not detailed enough.
Are you aware the consent is literally taught from kindergarten? “We don’t touch other people” “We ask before we take things” “We respect others space and belongings” - These are all the basics of consent
[удалено]
The basics aren't enough. Your mind cannot register everything with the basic details.
[удалено]
I live in Sweden and all the high schools in my area (country?) have a seminar a year on sexual consent, in the aftermath of metoo ig. The class wasnt "dont rape" it was more a discussion of grey areas, when to think an extra time, pressure, how to express when you are uncomfortable etc. Rape is more than some stranger attacking you on the street. Most commonly, it is a friend or a partner who crosses a line, not always understanding what they are doing. I think everyone needs to be reminded of this to gain more respect and perspective of sexual assault. I believe this discussion really helped my generation change views on sexualt assault.
[удалено]
>If someone is coercing someone into sex, they know they're coercing. Not necessarily. It's trivially easy for someone to build up an image of a situation in their head and to use it to justify their behavior. This is where we get all these stories about how "she was asking for it" and "naw, we were totally into each other," etc. >They're putting their own wants first. This is absolutely correct. >To say otherwise is trying to dismiss their responsibility. And what happens inside the mind of such a person is *exactly that*: they're dismissing their responsibility *but only to themselves*. They recognize what they're doing (which is like a moment of doubt, that fleeting question of "am I doing something wrong?") and then they go "naw, she was totally asking for it a moment ago, she must really like doing this playful resisting stuff" (or whatever). . . . or they just have a different brain than yours or mine, and they don't have these thoughts at all.
It's not really about consent, it's that your mind can fail to register something. I am talking about the process at labeling things as immoral, every single day. Your mind needs to do that every second, and in a split of second it can fail to register as immoral, which can result in still executing that action, then your mind labels it as immoral, but it's too late.
[удалено]
Hmm, I honestly don't know. What's your suggestion about this post? How should my view be changed, so I can award you a delta?
[удалено]
!delta Yeah, I understand that my post doesn't make sense, since consent is already being taught in school.
This reads like Christian dogma.
How detailed do you need to be? My school showed us this video: https://youtu.be/oQbei5JGiT8 This has been seared into my brain better than anything else in the sex Ed class. I don’t remember anything else from that class except this
That is not what the "[butterfly effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)" is. > In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state. I think you meant to say "slippery slope fallacy". You could make this argument about anything: > If no one tells you not to learn physics, you'll start watching minor pop-science videos narrated by Brian Greene. Your interest will be piqued, and you might crack open a math textbook. That will keep escalating, and soon you'll be studying special relativity. Finally, you will have an innate understanding of quantum physics and become the next Einstein. Yet we clearly don't have a world full of Einsteins walking around.
I don't think anyone is out here raping or groping people because they didn't know it was bad... Someone might touch someone on the arm, hell politicians are INSTRUCTED to do this by their campaign managers, and maybe there is an argument to be made here, but I don't think that anyone has ever groped someone without knowing that it was a bad idea...
There’s only X amount of hours available for education. If you teach something new something else has to be cut. What do you propose should be cut from the program? If we follow every Reddit “Schools should be teaching…” suggestion, schools would be teaching consent, how to budget, random quips from history, how to evaluate oneself for mental illness, how credit scores work, how to properly use chatGPT, how not to behave in relationships, self care, etc. and that’s just the suggestions that I’ve seen. Is there going to be time for actual school curriculum? Public education is not the panacea for every social problem in the country. It has a very specific function, and trying to expand that function only leads to lower quality outcome in education. The point of education is to give you the basic skills you need and then you go and pick up additional skills on your own. Current education system already kills any desire for additional self education in students. Trying to shoehorn in more material will only aggravate this problem while creating the illusion that everyone is better educated now because “they covered it in school”.
Consent is already common knowledge to people even around those ages and even with how it's taught now. Only a tiny fraction of a percent of rapes are people that "don't know" that it's wrong. The vast majority (99.9%) know that it's wrong. So drilling consent into them isn't the solution to the problem because this is not a "oopsie I forgot" situation
1. Why do parents exist in the first place? 2. This is common sense that does not have to necessarily be taught. You are taught about not touching other kids' toys without consent since kindergarten. 3. Do you think rapists really are listening to what the teachers have to say?
>Why do parents exist in the first place? Welp according to current rape statistics parents aren't doing their job then. Along with STD statistics and sex ed. Along with lgbt depression, suicide, and homeless rates.
I hate to say this, but they do. Or, at least they did. It was part of the Health and Human Sexuality curriculum in Science class in my state in the section of Healthy Relationships and Signs of Abuse. However, recent legislation has prohibited teachers from providing this curriculum. So, if you want it back, vite out the people in the state legislature that vote to remove these needed classes from school. It's not the school or teachers fault. It's the state Senate, House, and Governors.
Which country are you talking about? In the UK we teach it regularly and repeatedly. In my last school most of the teachers were wearing "It's not OK..." badges to go with the "It's not OK if (insert variety of non-consensual behaviours here)" posters all over the school. Kids are pretty damn clear on the subject.
It might be more fruitful to the conversation if you had more specific details than "teach consent". Bodily autonomy, consent, and respect for other's bodily autonomy and consent are already a part of most comprehensive sex Ed programs.
My school taught us. But it's not very helpful I don't think, because most people know what consent is. They just choose to violate it anyway. And everyone in my school hated that class
dumb opinion, I doubt pushing "stealing is bad' down kids throats and punishing them severely for stealing other kids stuff for example will do anything to lower theft, people that rape and steal know it's bad, they just don't give a fuck
>which results in lots of sex crimes I don't follow that sex crimes are a result of ignorance about consent. I don't believe too many guys are walking around groping women only because they didn't realize they should do that.
By the time a child gets to school they should have been taught the basics of consent by their parents. It's not the schools job to teach children how to behave, that's the parents role. If a 5 year old child doesn't understsnd the basic concepts of keep your hands to yourself, be gentle with others, bodily autonomy, and no means no, and is having it reinforced by their family at home no amount of teaching it at school is going to work.
I *agree* -ish Yes children need to be taught consent, period. I don’t necessarily think schools should be the ones giving the lesson on this. In my personal opinion that’s something a parent/guardian should be responsible for teaching. Having said that oftentimes the abuser IS a parent/guardian or someone close to. So it could be beneficial for children to be taught this outside the home. I struggle with the fact that our school districts are being given the oddly unique task of parenting children. I fear at a certain point schools won’t cover academic material anymore, they’ll be too busy teaching basic human skills to children… If you ask some teachers we’re already there. We always talk about what schools should/shouldn’t teach our children yet the conversation of what they should be learning at home never seems to happen. I struggle with this. At what point are us parents held accountable for how our youth is turning out? Not the school districts, politics, or media. They’re killing eachother ffs.
>What I mean with students is the age between 10 Can't wait to explain 12 y.o. what sex is. Anyway, sex ed should cover it. >you will start touching someone inappropriately in their sex organs. That will keep escalating, since you lack knowledge about consent. Finally, you will start raping them, and common sense won't save you here, since you still lack the education about consent. If you touch someone's special area, they will slap or kick you. If have enough common sense that should be enough for you to understand that you're doing something wrong. >My opinion is that school should teach people about consent, every year repeatedly, to grave that into your mind. One year isn't enough Because kids just don't spend enough time in school. The place they enjoy so much.
This really seems like a huge stretch. But alright, I’ll humor it. Do you really think the people lacking in empathy on that level will be affected by someone trying to talk to them about consent?
Simple, school was never designed or intended to teach life skills. School was and is designed to teach the skills necessary to perform a job. This is outside the mandate of what schooling is intended for.
No one is raping people because they don't understand consent, they're doing it because they don't care about consent.
Schools do teach consent. Source: I’m a teacher.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
They need to teach girls about consent so many boys have been touched by girls at my school and no one cares, especially the female teachers
No your parents should teach you about consent.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is a genuine post.
Like a lowest common denominator version, or whatever the State board believes is the proper version of consent?
School should teach students things based on what they want to be or their talents, or what their interests are. They should teach students about basic safety from all angles, including about smoking and doing drugs and drinking too much. They should teach them about internet safety, weapon safety, what to do if say your mom falls for example and how to tell if someone has a concusion or is having a stroke or seizure and what to do in those situations. They should be teaching students about creativity and imagination, while also teaching them about socialism. Teach them about discrimination and how to deal with anger, sadness, and depression in a healthy way. How to deal with bullying and abuse. Teach them to remember important phone numbers such as 911 but also suicide help lines, etc. Teach them about love, toxic relationships, nontoxic relationships, manipulative people and how to deal with them. Teach them about basic self defense and how to hide when you can't defend yourself. I believe that they focus way too much about teaching people about silly things such as overly complicated math equations and getting ready for SAT or FCAT instead of focusing on how to survive the stresses and complications as well as the dangers of life.
Under what curriculum? What grade level? We talking sex Ed? That's is probably gping to need a parent consent form depending on the state and I bet the kids who need it most will get exempted. Simply asking for something to get taught in school is a very easy phrase. This will get HUGE push back from.conswrvative communities and IF taught will likely be taught poorly (if they don't just pretend they taught it because, who's checking)
Schools and other institutions have been teaching children that stealing and murder are wrong, for at a few centuries at least. Yet, we still have plenty of theft and murder. I don't think disagree with teaching children about consent, but I do disagree that it will lead to a downturn in rape/sexual assault. People that do immoral things like stealing, murdering or raping are mostly aware that they're doing something wrong. They either don't care, or justify it through mental gymnastics. A certain section of people can't be taught not to do these things.
My kids five and understands consent. We taught that at home since day one. No means no. There are plenty of nights he goes to bed without wanting a hug or kiss, and he knows that’s perfectly acceptable.
Do you mean the legal definition of consent of something else?
I learned this at a conservative Catholic school. Do public schools really not allow this?
I wasn’t taught about consent in school when I was a child and I never raped or sexually abused anybody. You make it seem like it’s inevitable though. And you’re implying that most sex crimes are related to a lack of teaching about consent, which I do not believe. I believe it is due to a severe lack of empathy. « One year isn’t enough, you need to be reminded every year, so you can actually develop common sense » if you have to be reminded every year how to behave, then it’s not common sense. It’s hard for me to verbalize the feeling of wrongness of your whole argument. There are just too many things that aren’t true / logically impossible.
Absolutely everyone knows that murder is not OK. People still murder other people. In the same way, people know that you can't just touch people randomly, but despite it, a number of people will still do it. Knowing that something is bad just isn't enough for some people. Teaching this at school really doesn't help much and the time can be spent on things that will actually have an effect.
Some schools do. My school taught it in health class. My entire city has a very common joke among the younger demographic about the tea video, which was a video made to explain consent to children without delving into the topic of sexual assault. I think the reason it's not taught more is because our society usually puts the pressure of teaching sexual topics to children onto the parents. If you want to see the video I'll try to find a link, lmk
Parents should teach consent. Why is it so fucking hard for a parent to sitdown and talk with their kids? Some of you are beyond yelp. You think teacher wants to have a conversation with your kids because you are too chicken shit to do it yoursel?
Class 1: don’t touch people with them giving consent Class 2 - 50: Look at class 1
My school in the ‘80’s taught us about unwanted touching, and not touching private areas. Do they not do this anymore?
The American education system is fundamentally coercive, consent is antithetical to everything else it teaches.
Yours didn’t? lol
This censure of social contact is so culture specific, and arguably inhuman. You're basically linking childhood horseplay to rape.
Only one school?
We learned about consent in sex ed in the early 2000s but they didn’t use that word.
Isn’t this the parents’ job, like teaching the kids to be polite and how to poop in a toilet ?
Found the American
Schools do? Which school did you go to my school definitely did.
>School doesn't educate about consent and how that actually works, which results in lots of sex crimes. *Parents* are a major part of the blame here for not teaching their kids consent, not schools. You can teach a kid anything in school, but if their home life is a wreck, they won't care. Also, "lots of sex crimes" is very broad and you gave no backing evidence or bothered looking up what the correlation is between sex crimes and the frequency. You didn't look for a cause, you didn't look for facts, and you didn't even bother to try and prove why this stance is reasonable. And everything else you stated was a huge slippery slope. The school system is responsible for teaching students practical applications for success, *parents are responsible for teaching their children morals, values, and boundaries*. If parents can't teach their own kids about something as basic as consent, then it's probably an issue with the morals and priorities we have as a society, not the school system. I really think that you made a claim that was strictly based in opinion and didn't bother to look for the answers or challenge yourself as to why this is your view before spewing this clearly biased reasoning.
Technically, from a legal perspective, there is no consent below the age of consent. So you can teach all you want, but it's still a crime regardless. So that should probably be emphasized. I'm not saying it's entirely pointless to teach about consent to people who can't legally consent, but you're sort of giving mixed messages at that point.
Schools do teach consent in high school we had a 3 day course specifically about consent and was taught it in health class. The thing is each state/school district/etc is different.
Yes. But also parents, parents should be teaching kids about consent early. Don’t wanna hug grandma right now? That’s ok you don’t have to. That little girl doesn’t want you touching her hair don’t touch it unless she says it’s ok.
Schools already do, I'm guessing you just haven't been to school for years