So I'm supposed to stick my penis in her vagina?

[Ultra Awesome]

Just as the thread title suggests, this thread has to do with Sex education. As we should all know by now, a good number of schools offer sex education to children in schools. Whether it be high school, middle school, or even the final grades in an elementary school – sex education is offered to students world-wide.

Specifically in the United States, there are two types of sex education:


1) The first is known as abstinence-only sex education. Which simply by the name, you can already tell what it covers. Abstinence-only sex education basically teaches that one should wait until marriage for said individual to have sex, and not any time sooner. They explain sexual anatomy and all that other fancy stuff, of course; but they are very against what is known as contraception i.e. birth control by the use of devices such as condoms, birth control pills (etc).


2) The second is known as comprehensive sex education, which differs from the its counterpart in the way that they DO teach about condoms, birth control pills, etc – basically everything needed to prevent having a baby or spreading STD's. They state that abstinence is a positive choice, but feel that it is good to know about contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies or Sexually Transmitted Diseases.


Schools differ on a wide variety of reasons. Some schools teach abstinence-only; other schools teach comprehensive. Whatever the case may be, sex education is taught to the children. However, with every heads, there is a tail. And with every decision, there is a controversy. As has been for a long time, people have argued that sex education should be left to be taught by the parents of said child and not schools. These people feel as if schools do not offer what a parent can offer.

On the other hand, opposing views say that if sex education is left up to the parents, chances are that they won't teach the necessary criteria that a child needs to learn in order to experience the real world. They say that some parents (not all) are unreliable – thus will increase the chances of said child to not be aware of what is what, and where does it go when in the moment.

Needless to say, Sex Education is a widely controversial issue in which both sides make an interesting claim. So with that said, here are the questions I present for you guys…


Do you think that Sex Education should be taught by schools? Or should it be left up to the parents of said child to teach their kid(s) about dicks and vaginas?


Of the two, which do you feel should be the one to be taught? Abstinence-only? Or Comprehensive?


That's about it. Sex Education is a pretty controversial issue that has people going back and forth at the moment. Due to this, it is that I ask you that what is your opinion on sex education and who should be the one to teach it…

 

[SalvIsWin]

Abstinence-only programs are a joke. You're not going to convince teenagers not to have sex by telling them not to do it - it hasn't worked with anything else (drugs and alcohol come to mind), so why would the same approach work with sex? What's important here is to teach kids what they need to know about sex, why abstinence can be a positive choice, and why you need to use protection if you're going to have sex. Kids are going to have sex, so at least with a thorough sex education program they will know what they need to know to be safe.

I think schools should teach sex-education because it encompasses a lot of material that would be better suited for professionals to teach. It's not like a parent couldn't teach their child math, or English, or basic science (although many couldn't) - it's simply a complex area and should be taught by someone who is up to date. Sex education is important information; too important to just assume that a parent will adequately advise their child with the right information.

From my own experiences, people that advocate abstinence only programs do so because of a religious affiliation, or they try to justify the program with warped logic that doesn't actually make sense when you look objectively at the issue.

 

[Hawkeye]

I think sex should be taught in the home, because then parents have the satisfaction that their kids learned everything they did about sex at home from people they know and love, rather than some random on the street or at school. Sex is also something that can't be described in a textbook, or else you just won't know how to properly please your partner. It's a tricky subject, but being shy about it is just as bad as not teaching it at all.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I think sex should be taught in the home, because then parents have the satisfaction that their kids learned everything they did about sex at home from people they know and love, rather than some random on the street or at school.

What, so you think if the Parents teach their Children about sex first, that they won't still hear differing stories and alternative understandings about the subject that the Parents weren't willing to put into context, or description?

Of course not. You learn about everything from word of mouth, through wide-spread public speaking. You can teach a child anything you want, it doesn't mean you'll be the only person they hear about any one subject from - or the only version of 'said subject' they'll hear about.

I'd rather my Child learned everything from a school system, specifically designed to help them protect themselves from STD's, and proper protection - subjects that they can come home, explain what they've learned to me - and I can add to, how I see fit.

Sex is also something that can't be described in a textbook, or else you just won't know how to properly please your partner. It's a tricky subject, but being shy about it is just as bad as not teaching it at all.

This makes me question what type of Sexual Education classes you've took? When I had Sex Ed/Health class in school, I don't recall courses on "How to Please my Partner 101." What do you feel should be the proper way to go about this?

I take my children, and Wife, into a bedroom and show 'em how it's done? Tell me you aren't fucked in the head with any type of logical thought such as that.

And explaining to my own Children how my Son should properly insert his penis in any said part of a Woman; or how my Daughter should manipulate her body to please that of a man.. is just as worse, describing, as it would be to show. It isn't something a Parent should openly discuss with their child - not HOW TO perform, anyways.

Understanding what sex is about, and finding/discovering how to properly do it, are two entirely different subjects.

Children first need to learn the pro's and con's of sex. They need to understand it isn't something to rush into, but not something that necessarily has to wait until marriage, either. Until ALL OF THAT is understood properly, or at least to the fullest extent it could be.. then, and only then should anyone be concerned with pleasing their partner.

Sex is about learning, not instantly knowing. When I had sex for the first time, I didn't have a fucking step-by-step goal sheet. I played it the best I could, and it worked how it was meant to.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Abstinence-only programs are a joke. You're not going to convince teenagers not to have sex by telling them not to do it - it hasn't worked with anything else (drugs and alcohol come to mind), so why would the same approach work with sex? What's important here is to teach kids what they need to know about sex, why abstinence can be a positive choice, and why you need to use protection if you're going to have sex. Kids are going to have sex, so at least with a thorough sex education program they will know what they need to know to be safe.

Agreed, kids need to know how to be safe, and can then make their own decisions as to which path they take. Teaching abstinence only is wrong, and if the comprehensive Sex Ed. is taught then it can also be put forward why waiting until marriage could also be a good option. People need to know both sides, and safety is the most important thing with the spread of STD's growing by the year.

I think schools should teach sex-education because it encompasses a lot of material that would be better suited for professionals to teach. It's not like a parent couldn't teach their child math, or English, or basic science (although many couldn't) - it's simply a complex area and should be taught by someone who is up to date. Sex education is important information; too important to just assume that a parent will adequately advise their child with the right information.

Once again, I completely agree. Schools can get professionals in to teach the sex ed. classes, covering things as simple as how to put on condoms correctly etc, this is something that most parents will not want to cover with their kids. Plus, as you said, these professionals will be up-to-date and can give an unbiased opinion on what these kids should do. Parents are always more likely to tell their children (especially their daughters), that sex is something that you should wait for, and try and impose their beliefs (which will often be outdated as they are from a previous generation) on their kids, which should not be done. Parents should be able to advise and provide help, but for a topic as serious as sex, then I do think a professional will be better.

However, I am against sex ed. for pre-teens (anything below high school age) which is something English schools are considering. I think these young kids need to enjoy their childhood, and not have to think about these topics when they are so young. Sex ed. should be taught in high schools, and maybe the last year of primary school (which I had), but at 7 or 8? Not needed.

 

[ABMorales787]

Lets face it. Teens are idiots. Tell them not to do something and that's probably yht e first thing they do. Even with sex education being a required learning field there's still so many teens who screw up (thanks MTV for exploiting that). However the more you know, the more you're bound to do the right thing. I am in favor of school teaching as much as they can on the subject.

I remember learning about sex when I was 12. My mother had this book with cartoons showing how all that stuff worked. I was still pretty confused on it until I took my sex ed class. I learned about every thing. From condoms to birth control to STD's to why anal is wrong and why oral is good and even seduction and hormones. Crazy shit, but the point is I learned.

Parents can tell you all day about stuff like STD's and condoms, but they aren't teachers. Teachers are trained to, I don't know, TEACH. They are supposed to know this stuff from top to bottom and are supposed to know how to pass that information to kids in the correct manner. Parents aren't teachers even if they are your parents.

 

[SalvIsWin]

However, I am against sex ed. for pre-teens (anything below high school age) which is something English schools are considering. I think these young kids need to enjoy their childhood, and not have to think about these topics when they are so young. Sex ed. should be taught in high schools, and maybe the last year of primary school (which I had), but at 7 or 8? Not needed.

Fully agree - I don't see the point of teaching sexual education that early. Besides, you want the information to be fresh in their heads when they need that information - which sure as hell isn't 7 & 8, haha. 12-13 (grade 7 or 8) is the earliest sexual education should be taught, and in my own opinion, I think grade 8 is the best time. It's when (girls more, but some boys as well) are really starting to go through puberty, and they're becoming sexually capable.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I recieved my sex education at the age of 14. It was a part of the school curriculum. While there may be debate as to whether it was the appropriate age or not, some might think that it was a year too late, the thing that I liked about it was the fact that other similar topics like drug abuse and even a bit about euthanasia and its moral implications was taught as a part of the program.

The thing I feel about sex education is that not only does it need to be comprehensive, I think it also needs to be taught along with other issues of moral and ethical importance. What I am implying is that there should not be a seperate program only for sex ed but that program should target a host of other issues that teens might face. Only then will they have a better understanding of sex. I do feel that sex needs to be viewed as just another part of life rather than the thing around which everything revolves. Basing an entire program only for sex ed might send the wrong signal especially a comprehensive sex ed program. It might be interpreted as teens as something that the grown ups want to prevent them from enjoying at all costs and teens being the rebels that they are will try to go against everything that has been taught to them.

I think that more than just listing the pros and cons of sex in bullet points the thing that sex education should try for is to make teens understand that sex is an expression of love rather than just a way to enjoy themselves or say merely a status symbol. I think that it should be taught that one should not get into a relationship merely for sex. I know that it sounds a old worldish but it could be a way to curb the rampant promiscuity that we see in the society these days which leads to STD's.

 

[klunderbunker]

I definitely think there should be some form of it. For one thing, some children are going to know about sex and some aren't. If you were a parent that hadn't told your child about sex yet, who would you rather them learn it from if they learn it in school: a kid that's maybe 10 years old or an adult teacher that has been trained in how to explain adult concepts to children?

As far as what to teach, that's up in the air I think. I'd give the parents an option of what they want their children to hear. This is a delicate subject that not all families will agree on. Let the parents help make the decision that is best for their child. And yes that is more or less a cop out.

 

[falconsault]

I can't help but think of the episode of King of the Hill with this thread. People are more laid back when it comes to talking about sex in an educational manner than they used to be, and that ultimately is a good thing. I actually agree with Will on this, I would like my children to learn about it at school and discuss any questions or issues with them when they arise.

I also agree with the fact that it shouldn't be pre-teen being taught, the unfortunate truth of the matter is that children are entering into those stages earlier in their life than they used to. I don't think it's exactly right to teach sex ed to a 5th grader but if sex is happening someone needs to talk with the children performing these acts.

 

[Xemmy]

Mr. Awesome is God.

Do you think that Sex Education should be taught by schools? Or should it be left up to the parents of said child to teach their kid(s) about dicks and vaginas?
Yes it should. Kid's have lazy parents for one. Alot of parents simply aren't qualified to teach the basics- you know the science of it. Sex education is important because teens fuck. Teens fuck alot. Which I'm for by the way. Another issue is that they are fucking at a younger and younger age. I'm starting to hear about 12 year olds in my town losing their virginity.

Of the two, which do you feel should be the one to be taught? Abstinence-only? Or Comprehensive? Comprehensive ofcourse. At least a third of Abstinence course give some kind of misinformation, and it's not practical. Half of teens fuck, and half of teens will always fuck anyway. The courses simply don't work on what they're trying to prevent. My Abstinence class in our school (And to my knowledge has done so every year) has taught that condems don't work. Which is a lovely thing to teach to kids that want to fuck. It doesn't stop them from fuckin, but it does stop some of the stupid ones from buying condoms.

 

[6timehitta]

Well as some one who didn't listen to the "birds and the bees talk" I have little room to talk. But what I'm going to tell my son when he's old enough, is just be smart. Dont' be like your mom and I. While it is "cool" and "sweet" and "awesome" to you or your friends that you got laid, it really isn't worth the reprecautions. Overall, abstinence should be practiced. Will it though? Of course not, because what is the best way to know if you like or not like something, by trying it, I know it sounds stupid, but me as a man coming out of my teenage years, at 19, and my fiancee still being a "teen" at 18, I had to try somethings to make my decisions for my self. Some good, some bad, but if you can make it out of those personal choices you will no doubt be a better person.

 

[Notorious718]

I most definitely think there should be some form of sexual education in schools but nothing below the high school level. I just don't feel that children need to be learning about this type of thing at that age. However, schools with teachers specifically trained to teach teens about the topic is something I most certainly support. Personally, I feel it's a lot better than getting the whole "well, you know, when a man loves a woman" schtick I (as well as many others) got as a younger kid.

As for the question of which type of sex ed should be taught... I was taught primarily comprehensive sex ed in high school and I think that should be the type taught in schools. Truth be told, people will have mixed feelings on the subject regardless. I think KB did a good job in explaining it, it really should be up to the learners of what they want to hear.

Good thread, Mister Awesome as this really is a delicate yet interesting topic to delve into.

 

[RockFan89]

I guess I'll be the odd man out.

I believe sex education should be taught at home. If a parent wants to teach their children that sex is something special between and a man and a woman and should not be practiced outside of the bounds of marriage, then I don't think a teacher has a right to undercut that message.

We don't teach drug use in this way. Has a teacher ever said "You shouldn't do drugs, but if you do, here is the safest way of doing it."

Biology should teach about the anatomy of sex and health classes should be discussing things like STD's. But I don't want my children going to a class where a teacher is putting a condom on a Banana. In my opinion, that is a waste of time and money. Sex should be treated as something that people do, but shouldn't be taught in such a way that seems to purport a certain viewpoint on it.

Besides, because of the culture we live in everyone knows about sex. I question how much students are actually learning in the sex ed classes.

 

[Hawkeye]

What, so you think if the Parents teach their Children about sex first, that they won't still hear differing stories and alternative understandings about the subject that the Parents weren't willing to put into context, or description?

Of course not. You learn about everything from word of mouth, through wide-spread public speaking. You can teach a child anything you want, it doesn't mean you'll be the only person they hear about any one subject from - or the only version of 'said subject' they'll hear about.

I'd rather my Child learned everything from a school system, specifically designed to help them protect themselves from STD's, and proper protection - subjects that they can come home, explain what they've learned to me - and I can add to, how I see fit.



This makes me question what type of Sexual Education classes you've took? When I had Sex Ed/Health class in school, I don't recall courses on "How to Please my Partner 101." What do you feel should be the proper way to go about this?

I take my children, and Wife, into a bedroom and show 'em how it's done? Tell me you aren't fucked in the head with any type of logical thought such as that.

And explaining to my own Children how my Son should properly insert his penis in any said part of a Woman; or how my Daughter should manipulate her body to please that of a man.. is just as worse, describing, as it would be to show. It isn't something a Parent should openly discuss with their child - not HOW TO perform, anyways.

Understanding what sex is about, and finding/discovering how to properly do it, are two entirely different subjects.

Children first need to learn the pro's and con's of sex. They need to understand it isn't something to rush into, but not something that necessarily has to wait until marriage, either. Until ALL OF THAT is understood properly, or at least to the fullest extent it could be.. then, and only then should anyone be concerned with pleasing their partner.

Sex is about learning, not instantly knowing. When I had sex for the first time, I didn't have a fucking step-by-step goal sheet. I played it the best I could, and it worked how it was meant to.

Honestly, I've never taken Sex Ed, never learned from my parents either, I've only had sex once and wouldn't be able to tell you whether it was a satisfactory performance on my behalf. But anything my parents taught me as a child overrode anything I heard on the street or at school. If the parent is an established role model and authority figure in the household then it can be taught and it can be effective lesson.

I never suggested that you should show your child how to give your wife an orgasm,I just said that it can't be taught in a textbook,that's something you learn on your own. But teaching it out of a textbook in a formal classroom setting is just like having a step-by-step goal sheet in your hands. Teaching sex in school means you would have to hold it in the same regard as reading, writing and 'rithmetic and it loses it's intended passion and loving feeling.

 

[SalvIsWin]

We don't teach drug use in this way. Has a teacher ever said "You shouldn't do drugs, but if you do, here is the safest way of doing it."

Actually, schools do teach kids about sharing needles, and the dangers involved with things of that nature. Besides, there's a bit of a difference between illegal drugs, and legal consensual sex.

 

[Xemmy]

I guess I'll be the odd man out.

Good. Keeps things fun.

I believe sex education should be taught at home. If a parent wants to teach their children that sex is something special between and a man and a woman and should not be practiced outside of the bounds of marriage, then I don't think a teacher has a right to undercut that message.

Teachers don't undercut that. Abstinence programs teach the same thing.
Regular sex education does too. They just teach the saftey measures of sex- which some parents don't teach. We could flip it around and say that some parents don't like the sex education programs because they have no problem with non-abstinence, but it's a little hard to defend the position of being against teaching saftey measures.

We don't teach drug use in this way. Has a teacher ever said "You shouldn't do drugs, but if you do, here is the safest way of doing it."

Last time I checked, you can't OD on sex. It's not dangerous if done safely. Don't compare the two. The only similarity is that you can get diseases if you're not careful- which is one of the talking points in Anti-Drug classes, and should be taught in Sex-Ed classes too.

Biology should teach about the anatomy of sex and health classes should be discussing things like STD's. But I don't want my children going to a class where a teacher is putting a condom on a Banana. In my opinion, that is a waste of time and money. Sex should be treated as something that people do, but shouldn't be taught in such a way that seems to purport a certain viewpoint on it.

I didn't have the oportunity to take Anatomy or Health until my senior year. And my Biology class didn't teach Unit 5 (Evolution) nor did it go over the chapter on Human Sex. Plenty of kids these days have sex before they're in highschool. And while your banana problem maybe valid, it's not the only thing being taught in sex ed. But you've got a legitiment gripe- I don't want any spin to be put on sex ed classes either- and they are. I'd like just the facts to be taught, but very few teachers (sex ed or not) keep to the middle ground in education.

Besides, because of the culture we live in everyone knows about sex. I question how much students are actually learning in the sex ed classes.

In places YOU live in, that may apply, however not in the bible belt. Something I pointed out more subtly with Biology Class.
These view points may work in YOUR culture or city, but they don't work here. The conditions aren't the same.

To give a personal example- I had a 14 asking me for advice on sex about a month ago. She wanted to know about. Kids may know that Sex exists because of our culture, but they don't know the first thing about it until it's taught. And while it SHOULD be the responsibility of the parents to take care of that- many fail at that responsibility. That's where sex-ed comes in.

 

[RockFan89]

Actually, schools do teach kids about sharing needles, and the dangers involved with things of that nature. Besides, there's a bit of a difference between illegal drugs, and legal consensual sex.

But do you want your school to teach your kids not to share needles instead of not to do drugs? And what about legal drugs? Do you want teachers to tell kids to smoke with filters?

Teachers don't undercut that. Abstinence programs teach the same thing.
Regular sex education does too. They just teach the saftey measures of sex- which some parents don't teach. We could flip it around and say that some parents don't like the sex education programs because they have no problem with non-abstinence, but it's a little hard to defend the position of being against teaching saftey measures.

If I teach my kid that sex should be saved for marriage and a teacher comes and says if you do this you'll be fine, then it does undercut the parents message. The fact is that about half of abortions are done by women who used contraceptives, so abstinence is the only guarantee for safety. And there is an entire emotional component to sex that I highly doubt can be effectively conveyed from a teacher to a class of 20-30 students of different genders, homes, religions, and personal experiences

Last time I checked, you can't OD on sex. It's not dangerous if done safely. Don't compare the two. The only similarity is that you can get diseases if you're not careful- which is one of the talking points in Anti-Drug classes, and should be taught in Sex-Ed classes too.

The consequences of sex can be just as devastating as the consequences of drug use. The potential to get pregnant or get AIDS are major issues, and using contraceptives does not guarantee you won't get hurt. If a teacher says there is only a 99% chance that a condom fails and a student takes that information and begins having sex with his girlfriend, over the course of a couple of years in high school, how many times does he have sex? All of a sudden that 99% effectiveness becomes (99%)^(# of times he had sex). If you have sex 100 times, your contraceptive will only be 37% effective.

And by the way, drugs are not dangerous if used safely as well.

Kids may know that Sex exists because of our culture, but they don't know the first thing about it until it's taught

Well what do you mean by that? Do you mean they don't know what to do physically? Or do they not know about the consequences of it? I just feel that kids know that you can get pregnant from sex and that most kids know how to have sex. Just turn on the TV, sex is so prevalent in our society (even in the Bible Belt) that its hard to plead ignorance on the issue.

 

[Calderownz]

Personally, I think it has to be "attacked" on both ends. I think the parents clearly need to be the ones initiating the conversation, but by a certain point, teachers should be willing to let kids in on what's happening around them.

Still, it's mainly up to the parents in my opinion.

As far as which method should be applied.... I'm a realist. I deal with reality, not what I hope will be reality.

While I'm not saying that you teach them how to roll on a condom (not saying not to, either) I will say that you have to let kids know that if these are the choices you are going to make, be safe about making them.

Tell them not to feel pressured, or do ANYTHING AT ALL to simply fit in. However, safety should be the number one cause for any form of education on the subject.

SAFETY first, kids.

 

[Xemmy]

If I teach my kid that sex should be saved for marriage and a teacher comes and says if you do this you'll be fine, then it does undercut the parents message. The fact is that about half of abortions are done by women who used contraceptives, so abstinence is the only guarantee for safety. And there is an entire emotional component to sex that I highly doubt can be effectively conveyed from a teacher to a class of 20-30 students of different genders, homes, religions, and personal experiences

Teachers don't do that though. They teach it your way. They do encourage protection to students though. That isn't a bad thing. And for the record- I question whether there is an emotional component to sex. There IS an emotional component to sex in relationships, but not just sex. And they DO teach that too. They warned us endlessly about it about half way through our class e_e. And I highly doubt that it's going to be THAT different for 30 students. Humans happen to work the same sexually. By the way, the often seperate the boys and girls in class. Religions shouldn't matter AT ALL. And if this was all true, why did you suggest Biology and Health should be teaching this?

The consequences of sex can be just as devastating as the consequences of drug use. The potential to get pregnant or get AIDS are major issues, and using contraceptives does not guarantee you won't get hurt. If a teacher says there is only a 99% chance that a condom fails and a student takes that information and begins having sex with his girlfriend, over the course of a couple of years in high school, how many times does he have sex? All of a sudden that 99% effectiveness becomes (99%)^(# of times he had sex). If you have sex 100 times, your contraceptive will only be 37% effective.

For starters, your guy's going to have sex with his girlfriend regardless. Pregnancy isn't a major issue if you double up with the morning after pill. (Also, Anal sex is becoming incredibly prominent among teenagers) Disease is the real major issue, which is why they strong discourage sleeping around, staying with a steady partner, AND getting tested beforehand. I'd rather him use a condom, then have him and his chick without that knowledge. Second, they give out the statistics to scare kids on diseases just like in Anti-drug class. Most of which parents don't know. For example- we were told that 1/4 now have an STD. My parents didn't know that.

And by the way, drugs are not dangerous if used safely as well.

Unless you'd like stand here and claim that people will sell everything they have just to pay for the local hooker AND that you can overdose on sex...

Well what do you mean by that? Do you mean they don't know what to do physically? Or do they not know about the consequences of it? I just feel that kids know that you can get pregnant from sex and that most kids know how to have sex. Just turn on the TV, sex is so prevalent in our society (even in the Bible Belt) that its hard to plead ignorance on the issue.

Ha. Most kids, don't know how to have sex. (That was one of the things she asked me ) But that's not what I mean. Many would be robbed of the knowledge consequences if not for sex-ed. There's a church on every corner in this town and THEY definantly don't bother with it. Parents that go avoid the subject with their kids, hoping and praying that their children will just be good little Christians. And the knowledge that a T.V gives is really poor. Are you suggesting that we should just leave it be- because the T.V will teach them? The closest thing some some of the kids here get to it in this town is Family Guy. I'd rather the kid be taught in school then leave it to that or MTV. Especially considering those shows encourage it.

 

[RockFan89]

And for the record- I question whether there is an emotional component to sex. There IS an emotional component to sex in relationships, but not just sex. And they DO teach that too.

You question whether there is an emotional aspect to sex? Well that will be a sad state in America when most people can have sex without emotions. Our morals would reflect that of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and that would be a horrible place to be.

And I highly doubt that it's going to be THAT different for 30 students. Humans happen to work the same sexually. By the way, the often seperate the boys and girls in class.

So you think a student from a fairly liberal, open family will react the same way as a student from a conservative, traditional one? I disagree. We react to things based on our beliefs and experiences. There is not one set way that students will react to the topic of sex.

And the only time boys and girls were separated when I was in school was in 5h grade and that was when they discussed puberty. In 6th grade, our health teacher literally put up a projection of a man and woman's genitals and described the specific parts, with both boys and girls in the room. I don't mind that.

I have no issue with a teacher saying "this is what sex is," but I do mind a teacher saying "this is how you put on a condom" because the later implicitly condones something a parent may be against.

For starters, your guy's going to have sex with his girlfriend regardless. Pregnancy isn't a major issue if you double up with the morning after pill. (Also, Anal sex is becoming incredibly prominent among teenagers) Disease is the real major issue, which is why they strong discourage sleeping around, staying with a steady partner, AND getting tested beforehand.

Yeah, because there is no controversy about the morning after pill and those are so easy to get. Maybe you were talking about "the pill," which is different.

And if, as you stated before, there is no emotion involved with sex, why wouldn't teens start sleeping around?

Unless you'd like stand here and claim that people will sell everything they have just to pay for the local hooker AND that you can overdose on sex...

So you think everyone who does drugs will mess up their life? I specifically said that if you use drugs safely, odds are nothing bad will happen. And something like Marijuana is not even dangerous. You're comparing abusing drugs to safe sex when I'm comparing teaching safe sex to teaching safe drug use.

And why are you mitigating the risks of sexual activity. Things like AIDS and pregnancy are very serious and are problems that are crippling many communities. Besides, overdosing on drugs hurts one person. Getting AIDS puts everyone you have a relationship with at risk.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I have ambivalent feelings about it. Firstly, I don't buy the "you should have sex when you're ready" mentality that some people have. I have always thought that the right time for sex is when you aren't living under your parents' roof anymore. For most people, this is around the time they go to college. On the other hand, I am very well aware that it's inevitable some people are going to fuck while they're still in high school (and some may even start doing so at the end of middle school). It's these kids that make things so tricky.

I'm going to end this post with a question of my own. How do you teach sex education without encouraging/advocating that kids engage in such acts? How can you teach them about sex at an age when they're physically but not emotionally and mentally ready to have sex?

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Me personally, we didn't have sex education in high school and my parents didn't teach me anything about sex. I would rather have parents teach their kids because they're going to be the biggest influence over you and they can tell their kids about the mistakes they've made and what and what not to do. Sex education is a touchy subject in and of its itself so it's hard to decide when a child should know about it. If I was a parent, I would probably tell my child about sex when he or she is around 13 or 14 but that's just me.

 

[El Rev sXe]

I don't have much time right now, but I NEED to say something. Idk about the US, but sex ed. isn't only about having sex, you need to understand that. It's about SEXUALITY. When children (4-5 for example) are having sex ed. is for example to teach them to not touch their vaginas or penis all the time. For pre teens explain them about hormones and the physical AND PSICHOLOGICAL changes they are going through. I'm studying psychology and my specialization will be sexology. I know how important is sex ed. to a society, my country doesn't have it for example. Anyway, like I said before sex ed. isn't only about having sex is about SEXUALITY and I'm sorry, but it doens't matter if you are a boy or a girl, we are all in constant contact with sexuality. Later I will answer you questions Mister Awesome, I just needed to say that.

 

[CH David]

I don't see why both school and parents can't have a hand in it. School can do the teaching and parents can answer questions that the students don't feel comfortable asking in class. But that is probably too difficult for the overbearing parents who don't think anything sexual should be taught to teenagers.

I would advocate the teaching of comprehensive sex education, mostly because I went through it and it was quite informative. What is abstinence going to teach you? That you shouldn't give in to your urges until you are married? Bah, people will fuck like jack rabbits either way. Why not just make sure they are safe (or should be) and know the consequences? We learned that if you do give in to your urges to at least use a condom. There are risks to your health with STDs and pregnancy becomes an issue if you aren't protected properly. Though I do say that it should be taught in high school. I was a sophomore when I had it, which I can say is a solid time frame to teach at. It's just sex, not the end of the world. It's inevitably going to happen, so why not give kids the knowledge to at least know how to approach it (even if they aren't ready mentally).