Should human sexuality courses be reserved for college?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by ChristineES

And one other thing: Let the parents know that the class is being taught and they can approve or disapprove it if they want to.

I agree; and parents should approve the entire curriculum. Why should the government decide what's appropriate to learn?

Though that may be an issue for another thread.

[MoonWater]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

That's actually refuted by the data. Students who take sex ed have sex earlier and more frequently. But they have fewer pregnancies and less disease. The problem with all this is the emotional fallout, hence my concern for teaching about that.

ahh, okay. My mistake. Thanks for the correction

[rojse]

Sexual education should be taught early, before puberty, so that children should know the possible problems that occur if they decide to have sex, such as pregnancy, sexual disease, and so forth.

If we are not teaching children about sex in a controlled manner, either through parents or school, then children will get this information in an uncontrolled manner - from peers, from the media, and so forth, and who knows what sort of quality this education will be? And who knows whether this education will be impartial, or biased towards young adults having sex?

[OutOfTime]

yeah, because it's not like by the time we get to college we've seen enough por...I mean movies/tv to already figure out how it all goes.

i never had sex ed, TV was my teacher

[ChristineES]

i never had sex ed, TV was my teacher

I never had it either. When I was twelve, my best friend stole some dirty magazines from her older sister (who was 19)and showed them to me. I mean, I knew about sex before that, but this was the first time I had seen pictures. College it just too late. In my case, High School was too late.

[angellous_evangellous]

Seems to me the best time is just before puberty, so early middle school or late elementary school.

[Alceste]

I had some sex ed in Canada once I got into junior high - age 12 to 15 - and it was the strictly biological kind. What bits are where, then questions. There were never many questions, and the ones that popped up were bizarre and embarrassing for the teacher (that's why we "anonymously" got to put them into a bucket.) "What's a BeeJay". Etc. In high school there were disease-oriented lessons as well, but there was nothing in it that would inspire anyone to go ahead and have sex. Quite the opposite, in fact. The "ewww" factor was always aggressively promoted in Canadian sex ed. Cartoons of chopped-up genitals and graphic photos of STDs.

I'm not complaining, but I think, having experienced a standard Canadian sex-ed program, the argument that sex-ed makes sex more appealing is rather weak.

That said, my understanding of human sexuality and sexual development came almost entirely from three books my parents thoughtfully left "lying around" at opportune moments. First "Where did I come from?". Later, "What's happening to me?", and even later, some bizarre grown-up sex-related intellectual-historical thing that belonged to my dad, containing things like bestiality statistics and ancient erotic art. (Somewhere in there my best friend slipped me a copy of of some "how-to" manual of female orgasms, the name of which I have forgotten.)

Anyway, in conclusion, the type of sex ed taught in schools (in Canada) is the bare minimum of information children need to know, from as early as possible. Delaying it to college would be preposterous.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

That's actually refuted by the data. Students who take sex ed have sex earlier and more frequently. But they have fewer pregnancies and less disease.

Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Alceste

I had some sex ed in Canada once I got into junior high - age 12 to 15 - and it was the strictly biological kind. What bits are where, then questions. There were never many questions, and the ones that popped up were bizarre and embarrassing for the teacher (that's why we "anonymously" got to put them into a bucket.) "What's a BeeJay". Etc. In high school there were disease-oriented lessons as well, but there was nothing in it that would inspire anyone to go ahead and have sex. Quite the opposite, in fact. The "ewww" factor was always aggressively promoted in Canadian sex ed. Cartoons of chopped-up genitals and graphic photos of STDs.

I'm not complaining, but I think, having experienced a standard Canadian sex-ed program, the argument that sex-ed makes sex more appealing is rather weak.

That said, my understanding of human sexuality and sexual development came almost entirely from three books my parents thoughtfully left "lying around" at opportune moments. First "Where did I come from?". Later, "What's happening to me?", and even later, some bizarre grown-up sex-related intellectual-historical thing that belonged to my dad, containing things like bestiality statistics and ancient erotic art. (Somewhere in there my best friend slipped me a copy of of some "how-to" manual of female orgasms, the name of which I have forgotten.)

Anyway, in conclusion, the type of sex ed taught in schools (in Canada) is the bare minimum of information children need to know, from as early as possible. Delaying it to college would be preposterous.

They should not be going into the morality of Sex, or different way of having sex for classes designed to teach you about anatomy.

It should bee the basics of how new life is created naturally. that is ALL