Sex education

[Flushed]

This was an interesting topic that came up the other day. Obviously different places handle sex education differently, the distinct difference brought up was whether it be abstinence-based or not. I'm sure it's not accurate to categorize sex ed into these two different categories alone, but in general, sex ed can be seen as either focused on preventing sex, or educating about safe sex. Obviously the lines get a bit blurry sometimes, and maybe that's an indication of a system implementing both aspects, but I'd like to hear what you think is effective.

 

[Ephemeral Euphoria]

As far as using sex ed to help prevent sex amongst teens now I would just give each of the kids in the class a screaming baby and make them take care of their new baby for a week. If that does not scare them out of sex for at least a while I do not know what will lol.

 

[Clemstar]

Sex is a natural occurrence right? I think that sex ed should just involve the teaching of safe sex and not necessarily pressing on abstinence. Although I do think students should be cautioned and taught about side effects (sti's/ teenage pregnancy etc)

 

[Nolafus]

I think that the main focus for the sex ed classes should be abstinence. In my opinion, students shouldn't be having sex in the first place, but I also think that sex ed isn't the place for trying to prevent such things. I mean, half of the class is already giggling and pointing at images in the text book, it's not like they're going to listen when the teacher says to wait. So, abstinence should be the main focus, but safe sex should still be covered almost equally so that the students actually know about the dangers and how to avoid them to the best of their ability.

 

[loki123]

my brother and i are members are the V club. The V club is a club where we preserve our virginity until we are 18

 

[Flushed]

my brother and i are members are the V club. The V club is a club where we preserve our virginity until we are 18

That's quite an interesting take on the education system you got there.

And just because you become an adult doesn't keep you safer than anyone else.

 

[Kanzler]

I don't know what to think about sex really. I know that I've been told what to think by the whole spectrum, and that doesn't confuse any bit at all.

I don't think we should teach kids what they should think about sex. Concerning what to think, I guess the best way to get that across is to show what many different people think, to ground their views in a social context. I mean, you can talk about pregnancy and the biology all day, but it doesn't mean anything because sex to most of us is a social activity. Then again, showing what many people think about sex can get across the idea that sex is a big deal, and that's not something I'd want to get across either - there are certain things that I want to convince people are important, and sex isn't one of them. Not that it is or isn't a big deal, I just don't want me - or any one source really - to have an unfair share of actively influencing how someone thinks, I guess because there's no right or wrong answer.

I don't even think we should teach consent. Yes it's what we should do in practice and it reduces harm, but when we do that we're telling someone how to think about sex and how it should be done (initiation in this sense, not the physical act itself). The individualist (he's small i know) in me is saying no, we should leave that for people to figure out on their own.

Should we prevent sex? Sex is one of those things that only affects the people close to you and those you do it with - there's not really an economic incentive to do it or an impact from it, and I guess that much tells me that it doesn't matter in the sense that there's no rational answer. I do think abstinence, as taught as "you're a bit young and have to figure this out yourself" is a good idea, because it's rational in being safe not sorry. Is that depriving them of pleasure? What they don't know won't hurt them ;) I think a good way of putting it is "you don't have to have sex." Within that message is contextualizing sex with life as a whole, as well as an emphasis on consent :P

It's funny that people think of pregnancy as a side effect of sex. The biological consequence of sex /is/ pregnancy. Contraception to sex is the cure for the "disease" of pregnancy, the insulin to the diabetes XD

 

[Silais]

SEX EDUCATION IS IMPORTANT.

Whether you agree with sexual intercourse and its prevalence or not, it is imperative that we give our children the knowledge that sex exists and that it has certain consequences and benefits. We stigmatize sexual activity at an early age, and thus I believe teens are more likely to engage in it because of the taboo factor, which makes something supposedly "illegal" or unobtainable" more enticing. Of course, teenagers are experiencing hormonal changes which oftentimes lead to some sort of sexual activity, but the mystery of sexual activity, coupled with the strict social stigma against a lot of sexual activity, makes it more likely that teens will engage in sexual activity, sometimes not knowing the consequences of their actions. There's nothing worse than an uneducated population, correct? The same goes for education on sexual intercourse. If you're uninformed, you're more likely to make bad decisions. It's simple.

 

[Esper]

I don't think scare tactics work that well at stopping young people from having sex. If I may use myself as an example, I had sex ed in high school, learned about infections and all the bad things that could come about from it, and I even took a summer sex ed class at my community college where they were able to go into more depth and detail than high school, and yet I was still pretty dumb and careless when I first did it. Thankfully nothing serious or permanent came about. I mean, I knew exactly what I was getting into, but in the moment I didn't care so much. I was careful about pregnancy, but that was about it. I could have easily gotten some STI if my partner had had one (I didn't ask ahead of time like I should have).

I don't even think we should teach consent. Yes it's what we should do in practice and it reduces harm, but when we do that we're telling someone how to think about sex and how it should be done (initiation in this sense, not the physical act itself). The individualist (he's small i know) in me is saying no, we should leave that for people to figure out on their own.

I wish you would go more into explaining this. I can only see good in teaching people to ask for consent to help prevent accusations and recriminations after the fact.

 

[Kanzler]

It's just the individualist in me saying that we shouldn't influence people too much on how things are or how they ought to be. You have the same position as me, it's the practical thing to do because it reduces harm. But with something as individual and subjective as sex, it comes from a principle of not telling people what they should do or think. You're not getting defensive with me, are you? :>

 

[Rogue planet]

It's just the individualist in me saying that we shouldn't influence people too much on how things are or how they ought to be.

It's a good stance to take and I agree with you generally. Thing is, whilst people of our age are able to understand the situation (sometimes not even fully, but mostly), these are young children we're talking about. I'm not sure what the average age for sex ed is in america, but here in the UK we are first taught at aged 10/11; we're still trying to wrap our head around basic math formula...

I don't even think we should teach consent.

It's not like kids are taught they have to sign a contract in order for it to be all okay. OF course kids should be taught about consent... consent is simply knowing you have the right and the power to say no.... this isn't some form of child indoctrination, because lets face it, when young people want sex they are going to have sex. Once people reach the age of 18/19 they develop their own ideas by themselves and the sex ed they learnt years before isn't going to result in them treating sex the same way they did when they were 15.

The importance of teaching about consent is for those that find themselves in a situation where they don't want sex, or aren't entirely sure. In a world full of social pressures, it's a very real thing for a lot of young people to feel like they have to just "get over it" and let it happen.

 

[TheTorraRegion]

An interesting debate!

I, personally, was always raised to only have sex when married. However, I'm homeschooled and thus don't have to deal with social pressures, and I'm young and have never loved anyone...romantically speaking, so I've never exactly wanted to.

The fact is, hardly any teenagers are going to listen to someone preaching about abstinence (I know from experience). Or, nowadays, 10-12 year olds (I think), so they should probably focus more on safety. Leave the choice/problems to them/their parents, but try to keep anyone from dying it suffering from std or getting pregnant and killing the baby.

 

[Plumpyfoof]

I think Sex ed needs to be a part of an entire dedicated subject. LIFE STUDIES.
A class that teaches you how to change a tire and write a resume. How to lodge your tax return and what you need to think about when you want to move out of home.
Things I was never taught until it was too late, or I actively sought answers for.
This should be taught all through your schooling career. Set children up for life in the real world with something immediately applicable and they might take you more seriously.

With regards to sex in particular, it's important to start at zero. With what it is, how it happens, and why we do it. After that we move on to consequences of doing it.
My first sex ed class we talked about all the diseases you can get from it. Half the kids didn't know what sex was or why we were talking about it, one girl cried because she thought she had an STI. She was 11. She wasn't told you need to have sex first.

I think this is so important and yet educators are flipping through the curriculum because it's such a touchy subjective without giving proper care into how or why they're teaching it in the first place.
Get your act together education boards!

 

[TheTorraRegion]

Why teach about disease before the act itself? That's pretty stupid. :/

 

[Esper]

Why teach about disease before the act itself? That's pretty stupid. :/

There are a lot of schools that have to teach about abstinence by law, and some who would prefer to teach that anyway, and one of the things they want to teach you is that there are a lot of things that can happen as a consequence of sex. Personally, I think it's fearmongering, that it's just trying to scare people instead of educate them, but in any case telling kids about STDs (a.k.a. STIs) can make sex seem dangerous and can dissuade young people from trying to have sex.

 

[Rezilia]

I think Sex ed needs to be a part of an entire dedicated subject. LIFE STUDIES.

You'd have to take it out of Health Ed, which is already a thing.

And you don't have to have sex to have an STD - many are hereditary, which means you can have it just by being born. You can also give it to someone you have sex with, even if it's dormant in you. And if it's dormant in you, it can be active in your children.

So yes, she could have had an STD without having sex. In fact, some STDs aren't even transferred from sex - they can come from kissing and, rarely but not impossibly, just from drinking something or breathing air.

The best example of the above is herpes of the mouth - aka Oral Herpes.

 

[Her]

I don't even think we should teach consent. Yes it's what we should do in practice and it reduces harm, but when we do that we're telling someone how to think about sex and how it should be done (initiation in this sense, not the physical act itself).

ah yes let's increase already monstrous rape statistics by not teaching about consent

 

[Solace]

With regards to sex in particular, it's important to start at zero. With what it is, how it happens, and why we do it. After that we move on to consequences of doing it.

I think the teaching of safe sexual practice should be taught rather than the consequences of having sex. Better yet, the consequences of not practicing safe sex. By saying that sex has consequences, kids are either more likely to be afraid of having sex (which is not the end product we are trying to generate) or are more likely to be fearless in challenging the assumed things will happen to them. It's a psychological state called the indestructible self and it is common for teenagers to be aware of the consequences but also have confidence that 'the chances are so low that it could never happen to me.' That's what can ultimately result in kids experimenting in unsafe sex.

 

[Kanzler]

ah yes let's increase already monstrous rape statistics by not teaching about consent

My point was about individualism, and how sex is really one of those things people tend to be individual about, perhaps in some ways because of the nature of the act itself, in some ways because it's more private than not. It's about subjectivity and allowing people to form their own opinions because I think it's neat we can be individuals when it comes to something like sex.

 

[Dakotah]

I am of the school of thought that says: the more information you have the better decisions you can make (notice I did not say will make). I've been a sexually active male since I was twelve years old. Now, in my case, there was, and still isn't, no concern for pregnancy, but STDs was definitely something that I should have known about. Had that information been taught to me during sex-ed classes (which for me started in grade 5, and only pertained to heterosexual which was of little use to me), I most likely would have made different choices growing up. It wasn't until the AIDS scare that schools even really made an effort to educate students on the dangers of STDs, and even then they were largely covered only briefly. My impression was the teachers weren't given sufficient training on how to approach the subject.

We do our children a great disservice by withholding from them vital information that could help them make decisions in their lives. As I hinted at earlier, having this information doesn't guarantee that they will make the best choices, but at least they will have the opportunity to make an informed decision. People who advocate abstinence only sex ed really need to approach the subject not from a position of morals, but rather from a position of wanting to protect people from potential harm. Tell a child not to touch the stove when it's hot doesn't mean the child will automatically not touch the stove. It's only when the child does touch the stove that they really learn the lesson. The same applies to sex. We humans are sexual creatures, right from the moment of birth. Telling a child not to have sex will not prevent a child from one day having sex.