Sex education

[Good_Daughter]

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…

I think that by their 20’s, 30’s and beyond there are still too many people incapable of defining a stable loving relationship. Sex education doesn’t seem to be helping this problem.

 

[marybee]

I think its important to realize that kids ARE going to hear falsehoods from peers. It is important to have an adult (moral one hopefully) that can dispell myths etc. I would hope that if a parent takes their kid out of sex ed, that they would take the inititive themselves to educate their own children. They will hear it from their peers instead of the instructor, and it will probably be twisted etc. by the time it reaches the child.

As I said before, my parents neither opted for the sex ed, nor did they tell us anything themselves. ALL the info i got on sex was from peers/friends/cousins etc. those kids had adults to talk to them about it.

 

[allaussie]

You contradict yourself when you say you wish teachers would incorporate some teaching about “loving relationships” in the curriculum 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.

I think you don’t have enough faith in your ability as a parent to be more influential on your kids than a teacher. Why do you think that 1 week of sex-ed classes would somehow counteract the influence of 16 years of being part of a loving caring family. But for the children who have not been fortunate enough to receive that experience at home school is the next best option.
I possibly should have said that I think 16-year-olds have some idea of what a loving relationship looks like they may not be 100% certain but they have some ideas and they also have the mental capability to assess what they are taught and to accept or reject all or part of it. A teacher or whoever writes the curriculum can provide some examples of healthy loving relationships (they don’t have to be real examples) which will help those who don’t have a real life example in their family that they can follow. I want students taught that sex is about love not just about physical actions, I’m less worried about how a teacher defines love than the fact that they are willing to actually say that love exists and plays a part in sex.

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.

That is exactly my problem! It is currently all about mechanics schools tell children HOW you have sex but don’t answer the other crucial questions of WHY and WHEN sex should happen.

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?

First of all I don’t see what sex-ed has to do with drugs, illiteracy or crime since when were these topics included in sex ed? Second of all we don’t know what the statistics for teen pregnancy, STDs and the like would have been if we had a popular culture that promoted sex but nobody teaching kids how to protect themselves from these outcomes (when was the last time Hollywood showed ‘safe sex’, despite all the sex scenes nobody in movies mentions contraceptives). We also don’t know what the effect of a sex ed program that went beyond simple mechanics to the question of relationships. I would love to live in a world where all children are educated by their parents to be a loving responsible citizen and know what sex is, why it is done, when it is appropriate and who it is appropriate with but some children don’t receive that education at home and I would prefer that a school teaches them this than that they find out by trial and error or the education is left up to Hollywood. IMO Hollywood and other popular media is exactly who are teaching children today about everything but the mechanics of sex (or at least those not lucky enough to have parents who will do that job responsibly). Personally I don’t like the examples of relationships shown in a lot of popular media (music videos being some of the worst offenders) where it is a woman’s role to be overtly sexual and find a man to have a one night stand with. I know a number of teachers several of whom don’t share my faith but I would rather any of them teach my child (although this is hypothetical as I’m not a parent, though my brother is 13 and about to go through the standard sex-ed program) about what love means than Video Hits (I suppose the US equivalent would be MTV).

 

[blessedtoo]

Why do you think that 1 week of sex-ed classes would somehow counteract the influence of 16 years of being part of a loving caring family.

I never said sex ed in school would undo what is taught in the home. The state has no business teaching sex, period.

But for the children who have not been fortunate enough to receive that experience at home school is the next best option.

I don’t know where your idea comes from that there are all these poor unfortunate children without parents to teach them about sex. Do you have many orphans in Australia? While in the US, we do have a great many single-parent households, why would you assume that these parents are not educating their kids about sex? I was a single parent myself. Most of my son’s friends were raised by single moms. They were all educated by their parents (and in some cases, by the dad’s with whom they maintained a good relationship) about sex. There was no need for the school to get involved.

I possibly should have said that I think 16-year-olds have some idea of what a loving relationship looks like they may not be 100% certain but they have some ideas and they also have the mental capability to assess what they are taught and to accept or reject all or part of it.

I think you are terribly idealistic. As another poster pointed out, even most adults can’t identify or define a healthy loving relationship. Popular culture tells us to do “whatever makes you happy”. We’ve been told that for 40 years. Almost half of all children are being raised in single parent households. They are surrounded by examples of broken families. Where do you suppose they will form their definitions of a relationship at 16 years of age? Teachers are not qualified or empowered by law to teach the morality of relationships.

A teacher or whoever writes the curriculum can provide some examples of healthy loving relationships (they don’t have to be real examples) which will help those who don’t have a real life example in their family that they can follow…

Again, I ask you whose definition of “healthy loving relationship” do you want taught? Here is a sample of what is being taught in US schools. Read the whole article. It will make your hair stand on end.

What the study found will shock many parents and legislators. The leading comprehensive sex ed curricula discourage the most effective way to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (delaying sex until, and restricting it to, marriage) by explicitly describing various sexual activities, encouraging role playing of sexual acts in the classroom and field trips to buy condoms, and downplaying the risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases with contraceptive use.
cwalac.org/article_523.shtml

It is currently all about mechanics schools tell children HOW you have sex but don’t answer the other crucial questions of WHY and WHEN sex should happen.

They can’t teach WHY and WHEN. That would be moral instruction. If they attempt to teach morals, they may be infringing on the separation of Church and state. And again, whose morals are we teaching? Most teachers in the US school system are extremely liberal. They have no moral problem with co-habitation, homosexual acts, experimentation, etc. They see these things as morally acceptable. I don’t want that perverted view foisted upon my child.

continued…

 

[blessedtoo]

Second of all we don’t know what the statistics for teen pregnancy, STDs and the like would have been if we had a popular culture that promoted sex but nobody teaching kids how to protect themselves from these outcomes

When sex-ed was first introduced into the schools, the popular culture was not nearly as rank and full of filth as it is today. One could certainly make an argument that the two have grown hand in hand, not one following the other. Back then, it was argued that if children were not taught sex-ed in school, they would learn it from their peers (which they did anyway, even with the sex-ed). Today, the prevailing “wisdom” is that if the school doesn’t teach it, the TV will. Look, Playboy magazine has been around since the 1950’s. That doesn’t mean it was allowed in the house. Same with the filth of TV or the movies or in music. Parents have the say on whether their kids are exposed to garbage. And by the way, sex-ed in schools is NOT going to counteract the messages they get from pop culture. It will reinforce them.

We also don’t know what the effect of a sex ed program that went beyond simple mechanics to the question of relationships.

I shudder at the thought of the state schools teaching my child their version of relationships. They do not belong in this area of education. And again, you should be aware that most teachers in this country are very left leaning and would see absolutely nothing morally wrong with the Hollywood example of relationships.

I’m not a parent

I suspected. Don’t take this the wrong way, but I predict you will see things differently when you are on the other side of this debate.

 

[allaussie]

If I continue to argue this point I’m just going to repeat myself over and over again, so as we’re clearly not going to convert one another to our point of view I’m going to opt out of this discussion we’ll just have to agree to disagree.