Sex Education

Dance on fire.:

I learned about sex when I was 7. It didn't make me think that 'everyone's doing it', like you said. Anyway, 17 is wayyyy too late. This child would go through hell if they were the only one that didn't get the perverted jokes, and didn't know what his girlfriend was talking about when she said 'I'm ready'. I think that some parents don't want their kids to learn about sex in school, they find it uncomfortable. In 6th grade we had a program called 'worth the wait' that told us all about protection and about the fact that protection isn't foolproof.
But I had one friend who's mom didn't want her to learn, she was the only one.
The thing is, that her mother not wanting her to learn didn't stop her from learning.
Kids don't only learn it from their parents or school. Really, during the program not one of us were suprised about what we heard, even the ones who's parents never said anything about sex.

I totally agree. I knew a fair bit about sex by the time I was 8 or 9, and it sure as hell wasn't learned from my parents - they found me reading a children's book about the birds and the bees and confiscated it, and ragged me out. Nope, I learned pretty much everything I knew from reading mum's magazines and from listening to friends who were older than me (or friends' big brothers and sisters, etc). By the time we got sex ed in school, nothing we got taught was new to me. And nothing I'd learned had come from my parents.
And I sure as hell didn't think that 'everybody was doing it' when I was younger. As far as I was concerned, it was an activity that only adults indulged in, and the only reason I knew anything about it was because I read adult (eg Woman's Day, New Idea etc) magazines, which is something most kids my age would never have done (they were all still reading 'Spot').
The 'everybody's doing it' thing only becomes 'real' to teenagers in their high school years, by which time they've probably already had enough sex ed to be aware of what it is and how it's done. I fail to see how giving children knowledge of their bodies and human nature is going to make them think they have to do it - should drug education be banned from schools for fear of making kids think, 'everybody's doing it - I better go score some pot'?

ABSTINENCE ONLY TEACHINGS ARE WORTHLESS, THEY SHOULD TEACH SAFE SEX PRACTICES INSTEAD, IT WOULD PROBABLY PREVENT TEENAGE PREGNANCIES AND STDS

I think that sex education should also include how to be in a relationship, and how to say no to a partner who pressures us to have sex.

I honestly think paprents should step in more and tell there kids more. My mom tought me an=bout sex when i started my period and she told me everything that could happen and such. An I dont think 5 grade is too young because i remeber when i was in 4 grade about this girl having sex and weather shes lying or not is not the point. Its liek drugs they dosnt show kids this stuff till middle school. My freind medow is heavey druggie and it started in 6 grade. so is elementry really too young? or maybe sooner?

I definately don't believe in abstinence only sex ed or waiting until teenage years to talk to kids about sex. Kids are going to learn about from other kids any way so schools might as well start some sort of program as early as elementary(5th or so) so that kids are not misinformed from others. I also don't believe in the argument for censorship that if people learn about sex from a young age they will want to do it. The more knowledge kids have about the dangers of unprotected sex,how to protect themselves,etc will only be beneficial in cutting down on teenage pregnancies and stds

I think that it's a good idea to introduce sex-ed when someones around 13 becuase then they'll start to realise the facts and decide wheather or not they personally would want to wait to marrage or to do it before hand. It is a given that most teens wont listen and will end up having sex by the time there out of high school but for a select few it will save them from getting pregnant or making the wrong decision. The whole sex-ed program is not really a waste becuase it does give us at an eairly enough age whats going to be going on and what could happen, but then again they shouldnt push it on us so much becuase the more they do the more we will rebel.

with all that being said I think that they should continue sex-ed programs but instead of just strickly sticking to absidence also go through the safe sex ways, becuase even if they do end up having sex in there teens or before marrage they'll atleast know what could happen and realise that it's better to wear protection.

I believe in sex education, but I also believe in abstinance education too. I honestly think schools should be teaching both and not just one because, people are different, their morals and opinions are different, I don't think just one thing is right for everyone considering we are all really different and have different values etc. The way I see it is, if the kid truely believes they are ready to have sex, then they should have access to protection and education about it, and if they don't think they are ready, then they can wait. And I also think that it should be introduced in at least 7th or 8th grade, no later. No matter how much people want to deny it, kids well do it no matter what, they can't do anything about it, so they should at least know ahead of time about all that they will be getting into once they do do it. Thats my opinion at least.

I think that sex ed is kinda a controversial subject-which means both sides need to be represented. I think that it's perfectly fine to teach abstinence, but then why would it be sex ed if it's not taught? I think it's good when they talk about the effects, though..very important.

USE A CONDOM THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY

ZOMBIE;:

well I think that we should have sex ed but deffinetely not in the 5th grade and maybe just like twice in middle school not 4 times.
Its a good prgram but they are shoving it down kids throats.

I had it in 5th grade, but I (and everyone else) knew about fucking way before, we knew all the positions, pretty much, by third grade in my school. Ah, how I love Ridgecrest!

From the Abortion thread:

LunacyFringe:

^^ I wasnt literally comparing sex to murder. Im saying that the possibility of rebellion isnt a reason not to guide children/teens in the right direction.

"Teens are eager for a strong abstinence message. Ninety-four percent of teens say they want a strong message to abstain until at least after high school."
http://www.stayteen.org/get-informed/abstinence.aspx

^There is nothing on that page that actually points to the source of those statistics. If you can find 'em, fine. But I'm not usually one to take statistics seriously unless the stats are backed up by studies. I mean - where did they get them from?

By the way, did you know that 91% of statistics are completely made up on the spot? Fascinating, I know.

Jocularity aside, I found an article on an American study on abstinence education that was started in 1999 and followed up in 2005 and 2006. The study tracked 2,057 youngsters (around 11 and 12 when the study started) who participated in abstinence only classes, which lasted between 1 and 3 years. There was a control group of youngsters who didn't have one of the four abstinence classes.

The conclusion of the study found that the children who took one of the abstinence classes was no more likely to have sex later on in their teen years than the children in the control group who didn't take one of the classes.

In the article, they admit that for abstinence education to be truly effective, it has to be consistently followed up well into the teen years.

I don't know about in America, but over here in Australia, after a certain amount of time students are able to choose their own subjects they learn in high school - usually after about the age of 15. So it makes me wonder that if we did have continual abstinence programs, how many students would voluntarily pick an abstinence only class over other subjects? We don't even have abstinence only classes here, in the first place. At least it's not as widespread as in America, it seems.

I also found another article from the BBC that talked about several US based trials that showed abstinence only education didn't work in comparison to other education, which promoted the use of condoms and safe sex.

"Researchers found none of the abstinence-only programmes had an impact on the age at which individuals lost their virginity, whether they had unprotected sex, the number of sexual partners, the rates of sexually transmitted diseases or the number of pregnancies."

There was one trial - as stated in the article - that found there was a benefit in terms of sexual abstinence, but that it was also short term and was conflicting with six other trials that were reviewed by researchers.

There was one quote in the BBC article I found particularly true (from Genevieve Clark of the Terrence Higgins Trust): "But abstinence-only programmes don't work because they provide no safety net for those young people who do have a sexual relationship - and research shows that many do."

To me, I agree with this quote because it's illogical to expect all teenagers to want to follow an abstinence only education. Particularly now when the average age of first time sex is quite low, and teens are discovering their sexuality and sex early.

I don't think abstinence only education is effective. I think teens should be able to choose for themselves, instead of being taught that abstaining is the only way. In a perfect world, my view of sex education would be balanced, with sections focussing on safe sex and birth control, but also something about abstinence for those who want to choose it. I think abstinence has it's place in sex education, I'm just against whole programs dedicated to it. Especially programs that are compulsory.

^^ I wasnt meaning the site I stated to be used as hard-core facts. More as an example to show that just because kids might have sex even after being taught abstinence, is no reason to not teach abstinence. Im wasnt really referring to sex education at school either, more of whats taught in the home. I strongly believe in safe sex, and that teens need to be taught safe-sex as well as abstinence. So then if they do decide to have sex, at least they know how to stay safe.

Im not in any way opposed to sex education. Most schools now teach safe-sex, which is perfectly fine by me. Im more talking about teaching abstinence in the home.

I think my mom had a really good approach to the subject. She is a Christian and is 100% for abstinence. Though when I told her that I had made a few mistakes with a boyfriend of mine she immediately told me that if I was going to have sex, that I need to come to her to get birth control. She said that she strongly wanted me to abstain, but if I decided that I wasnt going to, I needed to be protected. I think its a very responsible approach for parents to take, and its one that I want to take with my own childen.

Encouraging abstinence doesnt mean that you are against the teaching of safe-sex.

LunacyFringe:

^^ I wasnt meaning the site I stated to be used as hard-core facts. More as an example to show that just because kids might have sex even after being taught abstinence, is no reason to not teach abstinence. Im wasnt really referring to sex education at school either, more of whats taught in the home. I strongly believe in safe sex, and that teens need to be taught safe-sex as well as abstinence. So then if they do decide to have sex, at least they know how to stay safe.

The point is that he is regarding your statistic as false and disproving it with other statistics. If you quote something, you intend for at least that one thing to be regarded as fact.

Also, abstinence-ONLY classes (which is what your quote was talking about) mean that the subject of safe sex is not broached AT ALL, because it is not considered an option in that context. That's the entire point of being against abstinence-only - we believe that safe sex is more important than wagging your finger and saying "no, no."

If that's not what you're talking about, why did you quote something supporting all of that?

LunacyFringe:

^^ I wasnt meaning the site I stated to be used as hard-core facts. More as an example to show that just because kids might have sex even after being taught abstinence, is no reason to not teach abstinence. Im wasnt really referring to sex education at school either, more of whats taught in the home. I strongly believe in safe sex, and that teens need to be taught safe-sex as well as abstinence. So then if they do decide to have sex, at least they know how to stay safe.

Im not in any way opposed to sex education. Most schools now teach safe-sex, which is perfectly fine by me. Im more talking about teaching abstinence in the home.

I think my mom had a really good approach to the subject. She is a Christian and is 100% for abstinence. Though when I told her that I had made a few mistakes with a boyfriend of mine she immediately told me that if I was going to have sex, that I need to come to her to get birth control. She said that she strongly wanted me to abstain, but if I decided that I wasnt going to, I needed to be protected. I think its a very responsible approach for parents to take, and its one that I want to take with my own childen.

Encouraging abstinence doesnt mean that you are against the teaching of safe-sex.

But... why quote a statistic and then say it's not supposed to be used as a hardcore fact? That's what stats are for. For backing up and argument.

Therefore it's kinda hard for me to see it as an "example to show that just because kids might have sex even after being taught abstinence, is no reason to not teach abstinence". It isn't an example if the statistic is unreliable.

I think encouraging children to abstain is irresponsible, just like it would be irresponsible to encourage children to have sex. The one thing I agree with what your mum said is about choice. I think it's good she's giving you that choice and saying, well if you're "doing things" then at least be safe and I'm not going to force you to abstain.

But you were originally talking about abstinence only education. Emphasis on the "only". I'm not against teaching students about abstinence if it's part of a bigger program that offers a wide range of information on sex. But abstinence only doesn't do this, because it's ONLY about abstinence.

Plus, abstinence only education is often strongly linked to religion and "staying pure until marriage", and I think that view is unhealthy to push onto children, because marriage in particular isn't something everyone wants.

Ok you guys are taking that statistic thing way too seriously. I put it at the end of my post all by itself. I never said that I was basing my argument off of this site, and I never said that that quote was 100% fact. Im sorry I ever posted it. It had no affect on my argument whatsoever, I just found it, and linked it.

I dont even remember mentioning abstinence-only education. Especially because I dont believe in abstinence-only education. I think abstinence is always the best choice. Its healthy, its safe, and there are no risks or side effects. But teens have a choice, and if they are going to make the choice to have sex then they need to be educated on protection.

The problem with the "bigger program that teaches abstinence & safe sex" is that less and less public schools teach abstinence at all, and thats a problem. The issue with safe-sex education is that it makes abstinence something thats not normal, and even strange. Teens need to be taught the importance of abstinence as well as the importance of preventing pregnancy and STD's.

LunacyFringe:

Ok you guys are taking that statistic thing way too seriously. I put it at the end of my post all by itself. I never said that I was basing my argument off of this site, and I never said that that quote was 100% fact. Im sorry I ever posted it. It had no affect on my argument whatsoever, I just found it, and linked it.

So if you didn't think it would have any bearing on your argument, why did you post the statistic? I'm betting you probably did think it had bearing on your argument and you weren't expecting it to be questioned. But then it was questioned, and suddenly we're "taking it too seriously" because we asked for a source.

LunacyFringe:

The problem with the "bigger program that teaches abstinence & safe sex" is that less and less public schools teach abstinence at all, and thats a problem. The issue with safe-sex education is that it makes abstinence something thats not normal, and even strange. Teens need to be taught the importance of abstinence as well as the importance of preventing pregnancy and STD's.

Abstinence isn't seen as a problem as such, it's just unrealistic. Teenagers have never abstained, as a group. Obviously there are those individuals who will abstain, but generally teenagers experiment. It's more beneficial to teach them about safe sex than it is to abstain, because with abstinence only education, STDs and safe sex aren't really touched on because it counters what abstinence is about.

I say teach both view points abstinence ans safe sex.