Sex education

[bones_IV]

Do you think sex education should be taught by the parents themselves or in schools?

 

[kage_ar]

Yes. Parents should teach children these important things. For kids who have parents who shrug off that responsibility, the schools will have to step in.

 

[1ke]

Do you think sex education should be taught by the parents themselves or in schools?

“Sex education” shouldn’t be taught at all.

Chastity, morality, and God’s plan for marriage and family should be taught to young people by their parents.

 

[marybee]

I think this is a good thread. First of all my Mom took us all out of Catholic school when she caught wind that there might be something taught about sex and then homeschooled us. The part that sucks is that she never explained any thing to us herself. In fact she didn’t even mention periods or anything like that either. We always had to ask our older sister to get us tampons etc.

I don’t think it has to be one or the other…but why can’t one be in addition to the other? There are some things a child may not want to ask their parents out of embarassment, or vise versa. I think they are both important. That is if morality is taken into consideration in both venues.

I have a huge family and my mom never even mentioned NFP, this was something I learned about in Catholic School. I think that is fine… What I object to is talk about homosexuality how it is “ok” and passing out condoms and practicing on bananas etc.

 

[SeekerJen]

Yes. Parents should teach children these important things. For kids who have parents who shrug off that responsibility, the schools will have to step in.

Agreed.

 

[bones_IV]

Agreed.

If the schools don’t educate those kids who are neglected who will?

 

[1ke]

If the schools don’t educate those kids who are neglected who will?

This must be the sole domain of parents. Otherwise, the state infringes upon their rights as the educator and protector of their children. If it is not the sole domain of the parent, who determines which children are “neglected” and what criteria do they use?

 

[Sr_Sally]

“Sex education” shouldn’t be taught at all.

Chastity, morality, and God’s plan for marriage and family should be taught to young people by their parents.

I agree. I still have a question about what happens with those children whose parents don’t step up to the plate. Do they simply go with no ‘learning’ in this area? Thinking back to what I’ve read about the bad old past, I’d say probably so. Mixed results then, probably mixed results now. But I do firmly agree that parents should be the teachers in this area.

 

[OneAugustKnight]

School can go right ahead and teach the biology of it in their science class. It should be just as cut and dry as teaching physics. No special emphasis on the subject by making a separate class on sex, or these ridiculous “What’s happening to my body” videos. It’s biology plain and simple and should be presented as dry and mechanical and boring. It shouldn’t deal with aberrations, birth control, morality, etc. It shouldn’t encourage fascination or obsessive discussion of sex with their friends.

The Church and parents need to teach chastity and morality. They should discourage silliness on this subject.

 

[1ke]

I agree. I still have a question about what happens with those children whose parents don’t step up to the plate. Do they simply go with no ‘learning’ in this area?

Why is *sexuality *singled out? There are a lot of things that my parents *should *have taught me and didn’t; or worse, taught me by bad example.

In any area where the state usurps the parental role it is dangerous.

Sex education has its roots in Margaret Sanger’s desire to live a free-love lifestyle. It is not rooted in any good motive. The purpose was to decouple sex from morality. The only way to do that is to remove the values system and teach that whatever feels good is right and OK to do.

Children don’t "need’ sex education.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Do you think sex education should be taught by the parents themselves or in schools?

It should be taught by the parents themselves, to each child individually, gradually, and with information appropriate to their age and maturity.

 

[OneAugustKnight]

Why is *sexuality *singled out? There are a lot of things that my parents *should *have taught me and didn’t; or worse, taught me by bad example.

In any area where the state usurps the parental role it is dangerous.

Sex education has its roots in Margaret Sanger’s desire to live a free-love lifestyle. It is not rooted in any good motive. The purpose was to decouple sex from morality. The only way to do that is to remove the values system and teach that whatever feels good is right and OK to do.

Children don’t "need’ sex education.

I agree, about the state usurping the parents role. Parents should be able to teach their children whatever brand of crazy they want to. Be it creationism, or neglecting to have discussions about periods with them, or extreme animal rights activism, or that men don’t do housework, or whatever.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Here is a quote from a document from the vatican:
THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY

THE TRUTH AND MEANING
OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

Guidelines for Education within the Family
“…the school, making itself available to carry out programmes of sex education, has often done this by taking the place of the family and, most of the time, with the aim of only providing information. Sometimes this really leads to the deformation of consciences. In many cases parents have given up their duty in this field or agreed to delegate it to others, because of the difficulty and their own lack of preparation.”

“The Holy Father John Paul II reaffirms this in Familiaris Consortio: “The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and **it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others”, except in the case, as mentioned at the beginning, of physical or psychological impossibility.” **

"Parents must never feel alone in this task. The Church supports and encourages them, confident that they can carry out this function better than anyone else. "

“Parents should provide this information with great delicacy, but clearly and at the appropriate time. Parents are well aware that their children must be treated in a personalized way, according to the personal conditions of their physiological and psychological development, and taking into due consideration the cultural environment of life and the adolescent’s daily experience. In order to evaluate properly what they should say to each child, it is very important that parents first of all seek light from the Lord in prayer and that they discuss this together so that their words will be neither too explicit nor too vague. Giving too many details to children is counterproductive. But delaying the first information for too long is imprudent, because every human person has natural curiosity in this regard and, sooner or later, everyone begins to ask themselves questions, especially in cultures where too much can be seen, even in public.”

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Also, “sex-ed” should not be taught from a purely biological point of view. The supernatural aspects need to be included since it is not a one dimensional biological process.

Here is the link to the document quoted above. I just pulled out a few quotes but this document is very thorough on the matter of sexual education:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

 

[allaussie]

A lot of parents neglect to tell their children about the facts of life and it’s important that the school gives them the information they need to deal with the outside world. Ideally parents will be open and frank about this sort of thing and will include moral teaching with this, but I live in the real world where a lot of parents are too embarassed or affraid to tell their kids anything about sex. I don’t want to see a return to the old days when people didn’t mention that sort of thing and many young women only found out either on their wedding night (my Grandmother was only told about sex by her mother on her wedding day, that’s not the sort of shock one wants on such a special day) or through experimentation beforehand.
I think that current curricula do focus almost exclusively on the biological facts and don’t talk about relationships at all, they just tell you what it is and how to do it not why or when you should do it. I really do wish that even in a non religious context (public schools etc.) people could say that sex is an expression of love not just an act to make you feel good for a few minutes, or worse make somebody else feel good even if you don’t feel good about it.
But I am in favour of teaching about contraceptives and STDs because like it or not most young people will be sexually active before they are married and I would rather they didn’t catch various nasty diseases. Educating students about abstinence is all very well but that sort of campaign is fighting an uphill battle against popular culture which constantly bombards us with the message that sexy is cool and fun and being ‘frigid’ is a quick route to unpopularity (although the message is less blatant than it once was it’s still prevalent in a less obvious more insidious way). In reality the statistics show that the majority of students who go through an abstinence only education end up having sex anyway and they have a significantly higher rate of STDs than the rest of the population because they haven’t been taught how to protect themselves.
I really hope that parents can teach their children about both the biological and moral aspects of sex but unfortunately a lot of parents don’t and so I would rather children learned the theory in school in a safe environment and be given the tools to make an informed decision (in a catholic school that would include the church’s teachings on the topic) than learn through trial and error. Sex before marriage is not new (I did a course on Renaissance history a couple of years ago and I read that according to parish records from the 16th century 1 in 4 first babies was born less than 9 months after their parents wedding) but today the risks of disease are much greater so I think that the only responsible thing educators can do is to give students all the information they can (including moral teachings wherever possible) and hope that they make a responsible decision, and if they do have sex at least they will do so safely.

 

[blessedtoo]

A lot of parents neglect to tell their children about the facts of life and it’s important that the school gives them the information they need to deal with the outside world. I don’t want to see a return to the old days when people didn’t mention that sort of thing and many young women only found out either on their wedding night (my Grandmother was only told about sex by her mother on her wedding day, that’s not the sort of shock one wants on such a special day) or through experimentation beforehand.

Right. Because now that our children are so well informed, things are so much better? Let’s look at the facts, shall we? Even if parents were remiss in talking to children about sex in the “old days”, what they did talk about was MORALITY and VALUES and saving oneself for marriage. The mechanics are virutally irrelevent. What can a mom tell her daughter about sex at 13 years of age that she would need to know to get by in the “real world”? How to put a condom on a boy? What the best birth control is? Interesting positions? My mother (and most of my friend’s mom’s) didn’t feel the need to explain all this nonsense because they were too busy explaining how important it was to respect oneself, restrain oneself, and save oneself for marriage.

The older generation, that suffered so from lack of sex education, also had significantly lower divorce rates, lower single-parenting and out of wedlock births, practicially insignificant STD’s, and of course, inconsequential numbers of abortion.

Yes, we are so much better off now that we KNOW so much.

I think that current curricula do focus almost exclusively on the biological facts and don’t talk about relationships at all, they just tell you what it is and how to do it not why or when you should do it.

Perhaps that is the case in your country, but here in the US children as young as 7 and 8 are being taught about homosexual sex, how to put a condom on a banana, and the secular version of a “relationship”.

I really do wish that even in a non religious context (public schools etc.) people could say that sex is an expression of love

Right. And if you remove the religious morality aspect, what you are left with is relativism. Do you really want some teacher, whose value system may be completely opposite of yours, to be explaining to your child what a “loving” relationship is?

But I am in favour of teaching about contraceptives and STDs because like it or not most young people will be sexually active before they are married and I would rather they didn’t catch various nasty diseases.

Over 25 years of “safe sex” teaching and the rate of STD’S is on the rise. Really, does anyone believe the lie still?

In reality the statistics show that the majority of students who go through an abstinence only education end up having sex anyway and they have a significantly higher rate of STDs than the rest of the population because they haven’t been taught how to protect themselves.

The vast majority of these “studies” have been discredited. In addition, even when those who were taught abstinence only engaged in pre-marital sex, they did so at a much later age than those who were taught all about “safe sex”.

I wouldn’t want the state anywhere near my child on the issue of sex education. My goodness, the state can’t even teach our children to read and write. You want them to “educate” our kids on one of the most important issues in their lives?

1ke is correct. This whole insane sex ed movement began with the radical feminists. It is so imbedded in the school system now that I doubt we can ever eradicate it. I thank God my son is grown and I don’t have to deal with this personally. If I did, I would absolutely home school my child.

 

[allaussie]

My mother (and most of my friend’s mom’s) didn’t feel the need to explain all this nonsense because they were too busy explaining how important it was to respect oneself, restrain oneself, and save oneself for marriage.

But that message wasn’t competing with what television, the internet and other forms of popular culture was teaching them.

Perhaps that is the case in your country, but here in the US children as young as 7 and 8 are being taught about homosexual sex, how to put a condom on a banana, and the secular version of a “relationship”.

7 or 8 is too young I agree, but I’m that is surely the exception not the rule. In Australia at 12 (year 6) school children learn about puberty and the changes they are going to experience in the next few years with a little bit of info on sex and conception (basically that puberty means you are capable of having a baby), then at 16 (year 10) more information about sex, conception, and contraception is taught often in science class but sometimes in a separate class depending on the state curriculum.

Right. And if you remove the religious morality aspect, what you are left with is relativism. Do you really want some teacher, whose value system may be completely opposite of yours, to be explaining to your child what a “loving” relationship is?

I think that at 16 (the age at which it is legal for them to have sex) most people are already capable of defining a stable, loving relationship for themselves and I don’t see why a teacher would need to define that for them. Hopefully the parents have told and demonstrated to their kids what a loving relationship looks like (I think 16 years of discussion and demonstration would have more of an impact than a 1 hour talk on the subject) but sometimes parents don’t perform that role and I would rather a teacher give them at least one definition of love instead of them believing that sex equals love and ending up in an unhealthy relationship or a young woman getting pregnant so she has somebody to love her (not an uncommon motivation among teenage mothers).

 

[iamrefreshed]

This must be the sole domain of parents. Otherwise, the state infringes upon their rights as the educator and protector of their children. If it is not the sole domain of the parent, who determines which children are “neglected” and what criteria do they use?

I think the compromise of having a parent sign the child up for the classes is a viable one. I know, from personal experience, that not all parents teach their children about sex. Mine never did, and we are catholic.

I think that a staunch attitude of no sex education, not now not ever is unfair to those who do not have a stable homelife.

 

[blessedtoo]

I think that at 16 (the age at which it is legal for them to have sex) most people are already capable of defining a stable, loving relationship for themselves and I don’t see why a teacher would need to define that for them.

I disagree. At 16, they are not capable of defining what a stable and comitted relationship is and this is clearly illustrated by statistics.

Out-of-wedlock births have been rising since the late 1990s.
The U.S. teen birth rate is still the highest among industrialized countries.

breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8LHMFDO0&show_article=1

At 16, kids are still awash in the hormonal rush of young adulthood. While they may have some basic understanding of “relationships”, I am quite sure most parents would be alarmed if their 16 or 17 year old chose to marry that young. Most parents understand that children at that age are too immature to grasp the complexities of marriage.

You contradict yourself when you say you wish teachers would incorporate some teaching about “loving relationships” in the curricilum while also stating that 16 years old already know what this means. And again, whose definition of “loving relationship” do you want taught to your child? Just the mere suggestion of school teachers defining this scares me to death.

parents don’t perform that role and I would rather a teacher give them at least one definition of love instead of them believing that sex equals love and ending up in an unhealthy relationship

I think that a staunch attitude of no sex education, not now not ever is unfair to those who do not have a stable homelife.

You clearly have more trust and faith in the state’s ability to teach anything about morals and love than I do. In addition, in the US, a teacher would not be allowed to teach any version of morality in the context of sex education. So all they receive is explicit information on mechanics.

Statistics show that children who come from broken homes are more likely to engage in pre-marital and risky sexual behavior. They are more like to do poorly in school, engage in illegal activites, develop drug or alcohol problems, etc. And these statistics are on the rise. If sex ed in the schools was so fabulous, wouldn’t these stats be on the decline? If the state was so effective at stepping in for negligent parents, wouldn’t we be seeing the fruits of their effort by now?

 

[SeekerJen]

I think I need to amend my earlier answer. Kids don’t need to be learning about modern secular sexual “norms” in school. I think that there should be an optional puberty/hygiene class, where the boys and girls are separated, and the biological changes of puberty are explained. The ideal age group would be grades 4 and 5, before the majority of them start experiencing said changes. As I’ve said, this should be optional, and parents should not be questioned if they do not wish for their children to participate. In that case, IMO the parents have a serious responsibility to explain such things to their children. If the kids don’t get basic biological info from a responsible source, they’re going to seek it out and either get misinformation from their peers or from immoral outside sources. Kids want to know what is happening to them and if they’re normal.