Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Department of Education
State Board of Education
Guidance Document Change: The guidance document "Model Policies Concerning Instructional Materials with Sexually Explicit Content" was developed in conjunction with stakeholders in order to comply with SB656 (2022).
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
7/27/22  9:21 am
Commenter: Concerned Parent opposed to SB656

Please define "sexually explicit"...or is this like "porn" and "you know it when you see it"?

I just don't understand all the parents out there wanting to take anything related to sex out of schools. We did that for years, you know back in the 1950s and 1960s, and guess what? More than half of the women in my mom's high school class never graduated because they left high school to raise babies. I had sex ed and access to "sexually explicit" books in my school libraries (like "Forever" by Judy Blume). Guess what? Most of the girls in my high school class graduated without having babies in high school. Teenage pregnancy rates have been declining since we started added "sexually explicit" content to schools. It's not some "woke" belief. It's been around for over 40 freaking years! (how about doing some research before you keep repeating nonsensical talking points? or in other words, if it were a car, it would be an antique.) And if you're my age and didn't get sex ed, you're probably from a state with a higher rate of teenage pregnancy, a higher poverty rate, and a less educated population (sorry if the truth hurts). I don't see how not talking about sex or providing access to sexual materials in schools helps. I mean, our kids are going to see it somewhere. Would you rather they find all the crazy stuff on the internet that is downright dangerous, or maybe they can hook up with a sexual predator in an online forum? (Happened to the teenage daughter of an acquaintance of mine in one of those places where sex ed isn't taught in schools.) Perhaps, you'd like to be a grandparent-parent--raising your 16-year-old's child right about the time when you were hoping to send your kid off to college? And how about taxes? Of course, we'll need to raise taxes to support all these babies being born to single teenage mom's without jobs or job prospects. Plus, then we'll need to educate those kids in our schools. (that's more money) Haven't I read that there's overcrowding in our schools as is? So our response is going to be to increase the birth rate? I believe that's the definition of irony. Schools and teachers aren't going to find "loopholes" to expose your precious snowflakes to porn (which they're already watching and looking at outside of school, btw, and if you don't believe that, you're blind or you're too busy to actually be involved in your kid's education--so you shouldn't have a say in it if you're choosing to b hands off), the schools are going to stop talking about anything related to sex because it might offend one person (ie: you). Someone said "medical" terms--yeah, sure--because no one considers that to be "sexual." And by doing that, schools are offending others. You want your school choice with your tax money. Guess what? Other people are taxpayers too and they feel differently than you. Personally, I'd rather spend my tax money on preventing teenage pregnancy than on supporting teenage mothers after they learn about the consequences of sex when it's too late and their choices are now limited by Dobbs. (such a great time to be a girl in America--not.)

CommentID: 124084