Should Schools Have Sex Education?

I thought I'd make this thread after many seemed interested in debating the issue at "Should Schools Teach Children About Homosexuality?"

If schools should teach about sex then:

• What sort of content would you include and what would you leave out?
• What age would be an appropriate time to start this education?
• Should parents be allowed to withdraw their children from sex education and, if so, what would be a valid reason for doing this?
• Should values be taught as a part of this education (eg. Having unprotected sex is wrong because you might get/get someone else pregnant)?

If schools should not teach about sex then:

• What alternatives should be available to educate a child about sex (eg. parents, faith based initiatives, specialists, health service) and what are the advantages of these methods over a school based education?
• Should there be a way of standardising the degree and quality of sex education that children recieve through non-school methods or should such decisions be left up to the parents/children?
• Should any government funding be put into non-school sex education?

I think sex education should be compulsory for teens but I know from experience that it leaves alot to be desired in it's current state.
I think it's down to parents more then schools, I think any parent stupid enough to hide their kids from the truth (my catholic aunt being one of them) is naive to think that their kids arn't curious about sex and won't experiment to find answers for themselves.
I don't see why sex is such a taboo when it comes down to education, I'd much rather my kids see a loving couple having sex on video rather then trying and experimenting themselves to find answers.
I also think that this generation of kids/teens should be taught sex ed by young teachers as older ones seem way to embarassed by the subject to even give a semi decent lesson!

Fluffy said:

What age would be an appropriate time to start this education?

Click to expand...

Staring by age 8 at the latest, and continuing every year through graduation from grade 12. Sex and related issues are such a vital part of human health and happiness that I believe they should be intensively taught about.

...what sort of content would you include and what would you leave out?

Click to expand...

The curriculum should be age appropriate, of course, and it should take on some aspects of sexuality later than others. But by the time a kid has graduated from grade 12, they should learn about everything from the biology of sexuality through birth and disease control methods to relationship skills.

Should parents be allowed to withdraw their children from sex education and, if so, what would be a valid reason for doing so?

Click to expand...

I think as a matter of practical politics, you would have to extend parents the right to withdraw their children from sex education for whatever reason(s) they have.

As long as they keep the same grainy films about gonherrea I was shown, I'm all for it:sorry1:

FatMan said:

As long as they keep the same grainy films about gonherrea I was shown, I'm all for it:sorry1:

Click to expand...

LOL. I wish I was smokin a :cigar: right now.

Children, whether they come from very religious homes or not, have a right to know about their bodies and how they work. There is no reason to keep that information from a child. Sex education doesn't, and shouldn't encourage children to have sex - the moralities of having sex is better left for the parents to teach (which is part of the reason I have an issue with abstinence only programs, but that's another topic).
I started real sex ed when I was in 8th grade, and in 5th grade we had "maturity night" - they split the boys and girls and showed us a video about what happens during puberty. I think that's a fine arrangement, and you make the curriculum age appropriate. I would say that actually talking about sex itself rather than just the reproductive system should start in high school.
I don't think parents should be able to "opt out" of this education. They may object to the teacher telling kids about the function of sex, but if they pull them out, how qualified is that parent to teach the kids the same material, even just from a biological standpoint? Do chldren with religious parents not have a right to know how their reprodctive organs work? Do they not deserve real information about STD's and pregnancy? How many parents could, and would be willing to teach their kids this necessary information, even if they choose to leave out birth control methods?
Kids don't listen, that's a fact of life. I didn't listen to my parents, and while I wasn't having sex in high school, some other kids were. Just because a child is raised in a religious home doesn't mean that there is no chance they will rebel and choose to have sex anyway. Wouldn't it be better they have the information that will protect them from disaster?
I do think some values should be taught, but not at the expense of the facts. Yes, tell kids that it's not good to have unprotected sex because it's dangerous. Yes, tell them that the only way to never get pregnant or to get an STD is to just not have sex. Yes, tell kids that they should never feel coerced by their boyfriend/girlfriend into having sex. But also tell them that certain methods of birth control exist, and if they choose to have sex anyway, to do it smartly and protect themselves. We should be encouraging kids to make thier own choices based on their own values, and the values taught by their parents.

If parents object to kids being taught about their bodies and can take them out of the class, what's next? Skip the section in history class where they talk about world religions like Islam and Hinduism? Or take kids out of class while they learn about classical mythology?

darkpenguin said:

I think sex education should be compulsory for teens but I know from experience that it leaves alot to be desired in it's current state.
I think it's down to parents more then schools, I think any parent stupid enough to hide their kids from the truth (my catholic aunt being one of them) is naive to think that their kids arn't curious about sex and won't experiment to find answers for themselves.
I don't see why sex is such a taboo when it comes down to education, I'd much rather my kids see a loving couple having sex on video rather then trying and experimenting themselves to find answers.
I also think that this generation of kids/teens should be taught sex ed by young teachers as older ones seem way to embarassed by the subject to even give a semi decent lesson!

Click to expand...

It should be taught both at home and school. The school can deal with the nitty gritty physics of the subject, whilst the family concentrate more on the emotional side of the subject.

The way sex is taught now (from what I have learned from my sons - and, believe me, they taught me a thing otr two), is that thew subject is dealt with in such a sterile manner - without any mention of "Love" and consequenses, is not ideal.

We are seeing more and more teenage girls here who "decide" that they want a baby by the age of 14........... Following that, a programme was aired in which the children were given REAL babies to look after (with the babie's parents having a video cam of what was going on in the house). Once the kids realised that just when you can shove a "pretend" baby in a cupboard with a couple of pillows to pad the crying, that can't be done with a real baby, those kids woke up with quite a sharp shock............

While I think politics requires sex education to be optional, I also think that kids should be required to pass a comprehensive exam on human sexuality before they are allowed to graduate from high school. So, if parents want to teach their kids about sex at home, and keep them from being educated by the school about it, that's fine --- so long as the kid can pass the exam, the kid can graduate.

Other- They should just show porn in the classrooms and have the children ask questions about it.

Anti-World said:

Other- They should just show porn in the classrooms and have the children ask questions about it.

Click to expand...

That would certainly be an improvement over abstinence only sex ed.

And it's not as bad as bringing strippers in.

I've never seen a situation where more education was a bad thing.

Fluffy said:

If schools should teach about sex then:

• What sort of content would you include and what would you leave out?
• What age would be an appropriate time to start this education?
• Should parents be allowed to withdraw their children from sex education and, if so, what would be a valid reason for doing this?
• Should values be taught as a part of this education (eg. Having unprotected sex is wrong because you might get/get someone else pregnant)?

Click to expand...

I would include (but not limit it to) the various types of STDs, their prevention, whether or not there is a cure for them, how to have safer sex, male and female anatomy, the psychological side of sex... I'm sure I'm leaving some things out. IMO the best approach to take would be "the only way to be 100% sure you will never get an STD or never get pregnant is to never have sex (with someone of the opposite sex on the pregnant part, anyway)... but you're hormonal kids, so here's how to do it safely if you just can't keep your pants on."

6th grade (11/12 years old) would be an ideal time to start, IMO.

I don't think anyone should be allowed to withdraw their kid from sex ed any more than they're allowed to withdraw them from a science or math class. Sex is a part of life, like it or not, and children shouldn't suffer from lack of knowledge about sex because of their parents' hangups over it.

Values should also not enter the equation AT ALL.

I think there's an overlap of values and facts though - I would say that telling kids that having unprotected sex is bad because it's dangerous is more a statement of fact than value..

Sunstone said:

Staring by age 8 at the latest, and continuing every year through graduation from grade 12. Sex and related issues are such a vital part of human health and happiness that I believe they should be intensively taught about.

The curriculum should be age appropriate, of course, and it should take on some aspects of sexuality later than others. But by the time a kid has graduated from grade 12, they should learn about everything from the biology of sexuality through birth and disease control methods to relationship skills.

I think as a matter of practical politics, you would have to extend parents the right to withdraw their children from sex education for whatever reason(s) they have.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much how I feel about it.

Sunstone said:

The curriculum should be age appropriate, of course, and it should take on some aspects of sexuality later than others. But by the time a kid has graduated from grade 12, they should learn about everything from the biology of sexuality through birth and disease control methods to relationship skills.

Click to expand...

I agree completely

If the child goes to a public school, I don't think parents should be able to opt out of sex ed for them. They can't opt out of math, science, english or history. If the parent isn't happy about the education the child is receiving there are alternatives to public schools, such as private education or home schooling.

If and when I have children, I intend to be open with them about sex, because I know that right now, they aren't getting a sufficient level of it in school.

If I had not gotten the sex ed in school, I would not have had any idea about things that could happen once I left home, because my parents never once mentioned it. The only thing I really got in school was in seventh grade, and i think there needed to be more once I was a little more mentally equipped to handle it.

It is not up to the school to instill morality into the kids, only to give them the knowledge the need to progress in life, instead it is the parents responsibilty to provide the morality. The schools should teach that abstinence is the only sure way to make certain that pregnancy and disease dont occur, but they should also provide the alternatives to abstinence should the kids decide they wish have sex, and they should provide them in detail, not just in passing. They should give the kids information about the changes that will be happening in their bodies at an early enough age that it not take them by surprise, prior to 13 this should be done with boys and girls seperately but receiving information about both sexes, then after that put them in the same classroom so that they can have discussions about the issues presented.

Anyway, thats just my view.

I think kids should have sex thier freshman year in high school. And the "abstinance only" should not be an option to teach them.

If this was a perfect world, we wouldn't need sex education in the classrooms.

I do think that schools should teach sex education. I think sex education should be taught to students around the age of ten, give or take a year or so and then as the kids get older, they can learn more things as they become more applicable to their age group. The first sex education I received in school was when I was in fifth grade. My classmates and I were old enough to handle sex education at that age, so I'm willing to bet most kids are. As for what should be taught? The basic reproduction stuff, of course, as well as safe sex practices and about protection, including how it applies in both same-sex and opposite-sex intercourse. All teaching should be done neutrally, not from any sort of judgemental view - it should focus on facts (and even abstinence can be brought up - just can't be the sole thing taught, of course - then it wouldn't be sex ed! ). As for value judgements, I see no place for those in sex ed. Facts and important information necessary to properly protect oneself and approach sex in a healthy manner is what the focus of a school sex education program. Leave value judgements for the students and their parents to decide. Also, I think the students should have to attend the lessons.

beckysoup61 said:

If this was a perfect world, we wouldn't need sex education in the classrooms.

Click to expand...

What would replace it?

Better they learn the chance of success via the condom method in class than when it's too late.