Sex Gyan Hindi - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or view presentation slides online. Gyanam. Free download sex education in hindi pdf for all android phones, tablets and other devices. All the best free sex education in hindi pdf you want on your android. Free download sex education in hindi fonts for all android phones, tablets and other devices. All the best free sex education in hindi fonts you want on your.
|Language:||English, Indonesian, Arabic|
|ePub File Size:||22.31 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.23 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
The Kamsutra is one of the world's most popular books on the art of love-making and sexuality. You can download the pdf of Kamsutra in Hindi. Feeling 'Blue': Pornography and Sex Education in Eastern Africa .. people search for sex education information in Hindi and Arabic (using modern standard Arabic .. 1 phonotadousmo.ml sex education in hindi pdf. Orhideia Nikolova; No videos; 34 views; Last updated on May 21, Share. Loading Save.
But when we disagree about important moral and civic issues, including the nature of morality itself, then, for both the civic and educational reasons we discussed in Chapter 2, students must learn about the alternatives, and teachers and schools should not take official positions on where the truth lies. The purpose of a liberal education should be to nurture an informed and reflective understanding of the conflicts. What shape moral education should take depends on the maturity of students.
We might think of a K—12 continuum in which character education begins immediately with the socialization of children into those consensus values and virtues that sustain our communities.
Nutrition & Health Education
As children grow older and more mature they should gradually be initiated into a liberal education in which they are taught to think in informed and reflective ways about important, but controversial, moral issues.
Character education and liberal education cannot be isolated in single courses but should be integrated into the curriculum as a whole. We also believe, however, that the curriculum should include room for a moral capstone course that high school seniors might take, in which they learn about the most important moral frameworks of thought—secular and religious, historical and contemporary—and how such frameworks might shape their thinking about the most urgent moral controversies they face.
This is, of course, the inevitable question: If we are going to teach values, whose values are we going to teach? The answer is simple, at least in principle: We teach everyone's values. When we agree with each other we teach the importance and rightness of those consensus values.
When we disagree, we teach about the alternatives and withhold judgment. For example, we agree about democracy; it is proper, indeed important, to convey to students the value of democracy and the democratic virtues. We disagree deeply about the values of the Republican and Democratic parties, however.
We can't leave politics out of the curriculum simply because it is controversial. If students are to be educated , if they are to make informed political decisions, they must learn something about the values and policies of the two parties. In public schools, teachers and texts should not take sides when the public is deeply divided; there should be no established political party.
Schools should teach students about the alternatives fairly. And so it should be with every other major moral or civic issue that divides us—including religion. A good liberal education will provide students with a basic cultural literacy about those aspects of the human condition sufficiently important to warrant a place in the curriculum.
We have argued in earlier chapters that a major purpose for studying history and literature is the understanding and insight they provide into the human condition.
History is a record of social, political, moral, and religious experiments; it provides interpretations of the suffering and flourishing of humankind.
The study of literature gives students imaginative insights into how people have thought and felt about the world in different times and places. History and literature provide students with a multitude of vicarious experiences so that they are not at the mercy of their limited and inevitably inadequate personal insights and experiences. So, for example, it is impossible to understand matters of racial justice and so specific a policy issue as affirmative action without understanding a good deal of history, and the insights gained from imaginative literature art, drama, and film will be immensely valuable in making that history come alive.
Indeed, one major criterion for choosing the history and literature we teach should be its relevance to deepening students' understanding of what is central to the suffering and flourishing of humankind. As we suggested in Chapter 2, a liberal education has both conservative and liberating aspects.
A good liberal education will initiate students into cultural traditions, shaping their moral identities in the process. We are not social atoms, but inheritors of languages, cultures, institutions, and moral traditions. From the beginning it has been a purpose of public education to make students into good citizens, good Americans.
In teaching history we provide students with a past, a sense of identity, a role in developing stories, a set of obligations. But a good liberal education will also teach students that disagreements among us run deep: We often disagree about the justice and goodness of different cultures and subcultures.
We disagree about how to make sense of the world, about how to interpret it. Indeed, we often disagree about what the relevant facts are—or, even more basically, what counts as a fact, as evidence, as a good argument. We have quite different worldviews.
A good liberal education will initiate students into a discussion of the major ways civilization has devised for talking about morality and the human condition. Most proposals for moral education are alike in employing vocabularies sterilized of religious language. The net effect, yet again, is the marginalization of religion.
The implicit message is that religion is irrelevant to the development of virtue, moral judgment, and the search for moral truth. But if students are to be liberally educated and not just trained or socialized, if schools are not to disenfranchise religious subcultures, and if they are to be neutral in matters of religion, then we must include religious voices in the discussion.
The character education movement is grounded in the conviction that there are consensus virtues and values. The consensus must be local, but it may also be broader; indeed, its advocates sometimes claim rightly that virtues such as honesty and integrity are universal and are found in all the world's religions.
Nonetheless, because religion can't be practiced in public schools and because it is often controversial, the character education movement avoids it.
Clearly the moral ethos of public schools must be secular rather than religious; character education cannot use religious exercises to nurture the development of character. But character education cannot implicitly convey the idea that religion is irrelevant to morality.
We have noted that character education employs literature and history to convey moral messages. Some of those stories and some of that history should make clear that people's moral convictions are often grounded in religious traditions. When teachers and students in the higher grades discuss controversial moral issues—abortion, sexuality, and social justice, for example—they must include religious perspectives on them in the discussion.
For constitutional reasons those religious interpretations cannot be disparaged or advocated. As we've noted many times, one reason we disagree in our moral judgments is that we are committed to strikingly different worldviews. Some of us ground our moral judgments in Scripture, others in cost-benefit analyses, yet others in conscience and there are many other alternatives.
Even when we agree—about honesty, for example—we may disagree about why we should be honest. Long-term self-interest and love of humanity may both prescribe honesty as the best policy—though one's attitude and motivation, the kind of person one is, may be quite different; and, of course, there will be occasions when the requirements of love and even long-term self-interest will diverge.
Just as in math, it is not enough that we agree about the right answer but we must get it in the right way , so in any domain of the curriculum a good education requires more than a shallow agreement about conclusions.
To be educated requires an understanding of the deep reasons for belief and values. Historically, religions have provided the categories, the narratives, the worldviews, that provided the deep justifications for morality.
From within almost any religious worldview, conservative or liberal, people must set themselves right with God, reconciling themselves to the basic moral structure of reality. They are to act in love and justice and community, being mindful of those less fortunate than themselves. The conventional wisdom now, however, is that we can teach morality without reference to religion. Indeed, the deep justifications have changed and often become more shallow in the process.
Health and home economics texts often ground their account of values in Abraham Maslow's humanistic psychology, whereas the economics standards and texts appeal to neoclassical economic theory and modern social science. Modern science at least implicitly teaches students there is no moral structure to nature.
Our whole moral vocabulary has changed: Indeed, students may learn that there are no right or wrong answers when moral judgments are the issue.
The problem is not just that educators ignore religious accounts of morality; it is that the secular worldview that pervades modern education renders religion suspect. How do we make sense of religious accounts of morality? A yearlong course in religious studies will help more.
We also find merit in the idea of a senior capstone course in ethics in which students would study various secular and religious ways of understanding morality and several of the most pressing moral problems of our time.
Conservative religious parents sometimes ask that Bible courses be offered in public schools as a way of addressing the moral development of children. As we have seen, the courts have made it clear that public schools cannot teach students that the Bible is true, or that children should act in accord with Biblical morality. Nonetheless, there is a constitutional way in which study of the Bible is relevant to moral education.
By studying the Bible or any religious text , students will encounter a vocabulary and framework for thinking about morality and the human condition that will quite properly provide them with critical distance on the secular ideas and ideals they acquire from elsewhere in the curriculum—and from popular culture.
Morality is at the heart of all religion, and, as we've argued, one important reason for studying religion is to acquire some sense of the answers that have been given to the fundamental existential questions of life.
Teachers and texts can't endorse religious answers to those questions, but they can and should expose students to them fairly as part of a good liberal—and moral—education. Students may find those answers compelling even if their teachers and texts don't require them to. It may be helpful to sketch the relevance of religion to one particularly troublesome part of the curriculum: It is important for students at some age to understand the biology of sexuality; but, of course, the purpose of sex education has always been something more than simple science education.
Its primary purpose has been to guide students' behavior, addressing major social problems such as unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases STDs. One way to address these problems is to teach students sexual abstinence. Another is to provide them with a little technological know-how regarding birth control and condoms.
Whichever position we take requires that we give students reasons for using condoms or foregoing the pleasures of sexuality. Three kinds of answers are common. First, it can be argued that either approach is in one's long-term self-interest, and much sex education focuses on the unhappy consequences of unplanned pregnancies and STDs.
Some students will recognize the risks and alter their behavior accordingly—though adolescents are not typically strong on long-term self-interest and deferred gratification. Perhaps more important, if it is to be truly educational , sex education must make students aware of the fact that sexual behavior is universally held to be subject to moral as well as prudential judgments.
To be ignorant of this is to be uneducated.
So, how do we introduce morality into sex education? A second approach—that taken in each of the four high school health texts we reviewed—is a variation on values clarification. Students should act responsibly: Each of the health texts concludes that responsible individuals will practice abstinence.
The problem, of course, is that this conclusion requires a considerable act of faith, for what students value most is up to them.
The books offer no grounds for assessing the values of students as morally right or wrong; values are ultimately personal. Health, home economics, and sex education texts and materials often use the language of values rather than that of morality.
But, of course, this is an extraordinarily narrow view of morality. We suspect that the deeper problem is that much ocial science can't make sense of morality and so must translate it into talk of choices and personal values. Virtually all the health and home economics texts we reviewed start from the position of humanistic psychology. But if the authors can't cast their conceptual nets wider than this, it is not surprising that they don't catch morality in them.
One irony in all of this is that virtually everyone still believes that some actions are morally right and other actions are morally wrong. Pedophilia is morally wrong. Not telling the person with whom one proposes to have sex that he or she has an STD is morally wrong. Honesty isn't just a matter of cost-benefit analysis and personal values; it is morally binding. If people don't understand this, they are ignorant, and if we don't teach students this, we are irresponsible.
As we have argued, the character education movement has been a widely accepted and much needed antidote to the relativistic tendencies of values clarification, and it offers another approach to sex education. Sexual relationships, like all relationships, should be characterized by honesty, loyalty, and respect for the feelings, privacy, and well-being of others—and broad consensus supports this.
Prudence, self-control, and a willingness to defer gratification are virtues of unquestionable importance in all aspects of life, but particularly in matters of sexuality. Whereas the values clarification approach typically highlights dilemmas and choices, character education emphasizes habit; self-control can't just be the result of decisions made as we go along.
The Healthy people goal  is a teen pregnancy rate at or below 43 pregnancies per 1, females age 15— Texas[ edit ] Sex education in Texas has recently become a policy of much focus in the state. With the rise of recent protests and proposed bills in the Texas House, the current policy has been the focus of much scrutiny. As of , when Senate Bill 1 was enacted, Texas has left the decision of inclusion of sex education classes within schools up to the individual districts. The school board members are entitled to approve all curricula that are taught; however the bill has certain criteria that a school must abide by when choosing to teach Sex Ed.
Additionally, school districts are not authorized to distribute condoms in connection with instruction relating to human sexuality. David Wiley and Kelly Wilson published the Just Say Don't Know: Sexuality Education in Texas Public Schools  report where they found that: Shaming and fear-based instruction are commonly used for teaching sex ed Gender stereotypes are promoted A majority of students receive no information about human sexuality except abstinence The materials used regularly contain factual errors and distort the truth about condoms and STDs According to Texas State Representative Mike Villarreal, "We have a responsibility to ensure that our children receive accurate information in the classroom, particularly when students' health is at stake," Villarreal said.
We cannot allow our schools to provide erroneous information—the stakes are far too high. The bill would have medically accurate information, including: abstinence, contraception, and what it really takes to be a parent. The bill received a hearing but was left in committee. It did not receive a hearing. Scientific evidence accumulated over many decades clearly demonstrates that the abstinence-only-until-married AOUM curriculum taught in Texas schools is harmful and ineffective in reducing the adolescent pregnancy rate in Texas.
In fact, the U. Some opponents of sex education in Catholic schools believe sex ed programs are doing more harm to the young than good. Opponents of sex education contend that children are not mentally and emotionally ready for this type of instruction, and believe that exposing the young to sex ed programs may foster the students with the preoccupation of sex. The Catholic Church believes that parents are the first educators and should rightfully fight for their duty as such in regard to sex education:   Humanae Vitae teaches that the faithful must form their 'consciences' as a guide to Christ-like decision making in regard to sex education.
A Consultative Council for Health and Human Relations Education was established in December under the chairmanship of Dame Margaret Blackwood ; its members possessed considerable expertise in the area. The Council had three major functions: to advise and to be consulted on all aspects of Health and Human Relations' Education in schools; to develop, for consideration of the Government, appropriate curriculum for schools; to advise and recommend the standards for in-service courses for teachers and relevant members of the school community.
Support services for the Consultative Council were provided by a new Health and Human Relations Unit within the Special Services Division of the Education Department of Victoria and was responsible for the implementation of the Government's policy and guidelines in this area. The Unit advised principals, school councils, teachers, parents, tertiary institutions and others in all aspects of Health and Human Relations Education.
In the Consultative Council recommended the adoption of a set of guidelines for the provision of Health and Human Relations Education in schools as well as a Curriculum Statement to assist schools in the development of their programs. These were presented to the Victorian Cabinet in December and adopted as Government policy. New Zealand[ edit ] In New Zealand, sexuality education is part of the Health and Physical Education curriculum, which is compulsory for the first ten years of schooling Years 1 to 10 but optional beyond that.
Sexual and reproductive health education begins at Year 7 approx. Sexual liberals see knowledge on sex as equipping individuals to make informed decisions about their personal sexuality, and they are in favor of comprehensive sexual education all throughout schooling, not just in high school. Sexual conservatives see knowledge on sex as encouraging adolescents to have sex, and they believe that sex should be taught inside the family in order for their morals to be included in the conversation.
Sexual conservatives see the importance of teaching sex education, but only through abstinence-only programs.
The description of Sex Education in hindi
Prescott , holds that what is at stake in sex education is control over the body and liberation from social control. Proponents of this view tend to see the political question as whether society or the individual should teach sexual mores.
Sexual education may thus be seen as providing individuals with the knowledge necessary to liberate themselves from socially organized sexual oppression and to make up their own minds.
In addition, sexual oppression may be viewed as socially harmful. Schools convey to children what is expected of them, what is normal, what is right and wrong. It is often claimed that values are caught rather than taught; through their ethos, schools socialize children into patterns of moral behavior.
Textbooks and courses often address moral questions and take moral positions. Literature inevitably explores moral issues, and writers take positions on those issues—as do publishers who decide which literature goes in the anthologies. In teaching history we initiate students into particular cultural traditions and identities. The overall shape of the curriculum is morally loaded by virtue of what it requires, what it makes available as electives, and what it ignores. For example, for more than a century but especially since A Nation at Risk and the reform reports of the s , there has been a powerful movement to make schooling and the curriculum serve economic purposes.
Religion and art, by contrast, have been largely ignored and are not even elective possibilities in many schools. As a result, schooling encourages a rather more materialistic and less spiritual culture—a matter of some moral significance.
Educators have devised a variety of approaches to values and morality embodied in self-esteem, community service, civic education, sex education, drug education, Holocaust education, multicultural education, values clarification, and character education programs—to name but a few.
We might consider two of the most influential of these approaches briefly. For the past several decades values clarification programs have been widely used in public schools. Values are ultimately personal; indeed, the implicit message is that there are no right or wrong values. Needless to say, this is a deeply controversial approach—and is now widely rejected.
The character education movement of the last decade has been a response, in part, to the perceived relativism of values clarification.The testicles are held by the spermatic cord, which is a tubelike structure containing blood vessels, nerves, the vas deferens, and a muscle that helps to raise and lower the testicles in response to temperature changes and sexual arousal, in which the testicles are drawn closer to the body. Religious conservatives have often grounded morality in Scripture, whereas religious liberals have often held that through continuing moral and religious experience, reason and reflection, we can progressively acquire deeper insight into morality and reform our traditions.
Finally, a few reminders. Higher scores indicated a better knowledge and a liberal attitude.
The penis has a foreskin that typically covers the glans; this is sometimes removed by circumcision for medical, religious or cultural reasons. Teacher policy is education policy that addresses the preparation, recruitment, and retention of teachers.
More recent research has focused upon the influence of feminist theory and courtship. Alternative education Homeschooling Adult education Portal.