What should public schools teach our children about sex? It can be a complex question, especially when dealing with morals, social norms, pop culture, hormones and health. When students sit down for their sex education, should teachers embrace an abstinence-only policy?
Teachers can ask for essay writing on topics by researching.Right now, students can collect information from internet under correct guidance.So based on those essays they can evaluate and set their policy.
Yes Sex ED should be taught in school but not just abstinence because that is why teens are having babies because they were never taught how to use protection. On top of that they are getting STD's because they are being taught abstinence. Now i just graduated in 2009 and still have high school fresh in my mind, and i had most of my friends with babies and i have no children but i was on that road as a teen. Actually children think it is ok to have babies. That is where there is a problem. If Adults would get off their butts and get a clue there would be less babies with babies. You can teach children abstinence but also give them an alternative. For those who already have had sex teach them for males how to put on a condom and females to use birth control and to make the guy put that condom on. That is the safest way to have sex if that is your chose because abstinence is NOT working
Coming from a junior in college , growing up I was bombarded with abstinence only sex -ed, heck I received a purity ring two years after I lost my virginity. Sex wasn't something I strove for, it was something that just happened; albeit in all cases I was intoxicated but that is another argument in and of itself. It took an eye opener, a good friend of the gal sitting be down and explaining that I should go get checked, to make me be very pro-active with protection.
This is a very touchy subject, but for me the only advice I received in high school was from my baseball coach. That said, in health class, when it came to the subject of STD's was to ""wear a condom and thats that."
I don't know what was more humiliating, having to tell my dad what that test was on the bursar billing statement, or actually getting the test done because of my carelessness.
You.
To clarify, I do not object to teaching anatomy in our schools . It is an appropriate function of an educational institution to teach students how the body works.
Despite the name, Sex-Ed is not about education . It's about moral guidance or indoctrination depending on the material and your viewpoint. At one extreme is abstinence-only , and what I view as the much farther extreme, "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings is promoting the virtues of "fisting" to 14 year-olds and handing out "fisting kits." Neither belongs in our public schools.
This responsibility ultimately belongs to parents, and those individuals and entities with whom they choose to share it.
I myself am a Christian and I know abstinence is the best choice (as far as religion and morals are concerned) but I am not so blind as to say teenagers will listen. Obviously they won't always listen so why not give them the hard facts while in sex-ed classes, but tell them if they DO end up engaging in sexual actions to protect themselves as to not end up pregnant, and to hopefully remain disease free.
The increase in teen pregnancy rates in Texas (the poster state for abstinence only education ) supports this hypothesis.
I myself know how teen's respond to abstinence only education . Heck they laugh at the mention of abstinence *literally*
well last time I checked sex was fun and felt good.
The only reason why I did not have more sexual encounters when I was in my teens was because I lacked opportunity, not because I didn't think it was right.
Then that proves my point.
my experiences are anecdotal.. the proof is in the teen pregnancy rates in states that focus on abstinence only education .
Read this book: THE MYTH OF SAFE SEX, by John Ankerberg and John Weldon
Excellent book for all parents but highly recommended for Christian parents. This book was very beneficial to me as I am studying the effects of Planned Parenthoods involvement in sex- education in the public school system. This book is chucked full of statistics that will shock even the learned reader on Aids and the devastation that has occured because of the sexual revolution mainly in our school systems. The numbers of youth that are infected today will break your heart and if that statistic alone does not cause you to get involved by either monitoring what your childs school is teaching in Health and Sex Education or by doing the best thing, in my opinion,and remove your child from the secular authorities that are ruining the minds, hearts, and spirits of America's children . I give this book a 5 for its efforts to tell the whole story and to try and prevent further deaths from this sexual holocaust killing innocent children who have been taught that sex is safe and this book will show that it is anything but safe.
The problem with abstinence only sex-ed is it leaves out any discussion of natural family planing. Women are then left with the one sided aproach of Planed Parenthood.
Indeed, even for married couples there are reasons why having children is to be avoided. A couple that already has as many children as they can afford (or cannot yet afford to have children) benefits from family planning assistance.
Kids don't listen to everything they're told and they only believe what they want to believe. Abstinence has been taught for a long time and teens are still having sex as much, if not more than ever. You can try to scare teens with the threats of STI's and pregnacy, but being "invincible" causes them to do whatever they want without consquences. If teens are going to do it, they might as well focus on informing them about sex. These public programs should focus on contraception to make sure teens are staying safe and they should answer any questions teens may have to avoid confusion. Our culture is different, influence is strong, an abstinence program won't do much.
I agree with lanidee02 if it's going to happen it's going to happen. Teachers can stand up in the front of the classroom and preach to their students about abstinence but, it is not going to stop them from having sex. Since when does telling a teenager not do something stop them from doing it? Doesn’t that just egg them on even more? So, why not teach them how to be responsible if they choose to be sexually active. You could actually have an impact on their future if you teach them how to prevent pregnancy. I’m not at all saying that teachers should promote sex or encourage it but, they should teach kids the prevention methods so they are aware of them. Religion should be kept out of the schools. If parents want to teach their kids that abstinence is the best choice that is their decision. If parents want to shelter their kids from reality, then they should home school them, and keep them cooped up in the house. They shouldn’t allow them to watch TV, read magazines, or use the internet. Sex is everywhere so you might as well address the fact and tell your children how they can prevent pregnancy. Don’t get me wrong I know people choose abstinence but, I don’t believe that just because you or your child’s teacher tells them to not have sex they will automatically follow your commands. Everyone is their own individual and will make the choice they feel is right. We can all hope our children abstain from sex but, hope can only get you so far.
I agree with lanidee02 if it's going to happen it's going to happen. Teachers can stand up in the front of the classroom and preach to their students about abstinence but, it is not going to stop them from having sex. Since when does telling a teenager not do something stop them from doing it? Doesn’t that just egg them on even more? So, why not teach them how to be responsible if they choose to be sexually active. You could actually have an impact on their future if you teach them how to prevent pregnancy. I’m not at all saying that teachers should promote sex or encourage it but, they should teach kids the prevention methods so they are aware of them. Religion should be kept out of the schools. If parents want to teach their kids that abstinence is the best choice that is their decision. If parents want to shelter their kids from reality, then they should home school them, and keep them cooped up in the house. They shouldn’t allow them to watch TV, read magazines, or use the internet. Sex is everywhere so you might as well address the fact and tell your children how they can prevent pregnancy. Don’t get me wrong I know people choose abstinence but, I don’t believe that just because you or your child’s teacher tells them to not have sex they will automatically follow your commands. Everyone is their own individual and will make the choice they feel is right. We can all hope our children abstain from sex but, hope can only get you so far.
I have to admit both ways of teaching sex-ed has their benifits, but I believe that we need to use the solution that will benifit everyone as a whole. The fact of the matter is there will always be kids in high school that will have pre-marridal sex, and we need to teach them what the consequences are to that and how to help prevent sexually transmitted diseases if they decide to. I think teaching kids what can happen to you when you have multiple sex partners will help them make more intelligent choices on whether or not they choose abstinence until marriage.
Teaching abstinence-only sex-ed is like teaching republican-only government classes. Only teaching abstinence hurts students more than anything. They need to be informed about every aspect of sex, not shown just one path. Students are going to have sex regardless of what they are or are not taught, so you might as well teach them what could happen through multiple sex partners or not practicing safe sex. They need to be prepared for what is out there and informed about how they can protect themselves and others from STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Teaching abstinence-only just makes teens more succeptible to the cons of multiple sex partners and unsafe sex. Students need the facts, and ALL the facts.
So kids are biologically prepared to have sex whenever spermarche/menarche hits (which happens as early as 8). But they aren't psychologically prepared for the experience until much older, which is why it makes sense that so many parents want their kids to be taught "abstinence only sex-ed." I don't believe that this idea is backed by crazy religious types as much as it is every day concerned parents who only want to shield their children from harm. Having said that, research indicates that abstinence only sex-ed works (a little) on younger teens, but not so much in older teens (in fact, pretty much not at all). Bottom line - I believe you could hammer your 18 year old with statistics of STDs, dangers of teen pregnancy, etc all day long every day 24/7, but they will continue to think that they are somehow "unique" and impervious to such trivial setbacks like gonorrhea.
If abstinence only works and it should be adopted on a national level, then how come in abstinence only communities, there are so many more teenage pregnancies than in communities that teach safe-sex practices as opposed to abstinence only, and don't let the Netherlands tag bias anyone.
Sex ed teaches kids to be responsible. Remind me that these are kids that are hormone raged crazy nuts some times. The more appropriate argument is when we should be teaching a kids this stuff.
I think schools should give priority to abstinence because thats the most effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and diseases, but also have to teach about being responsible and safe sex.
What we're doing is teaching our kids to be immoral from the start. We're telling kids to have safer sex and telling that it's okay to give a piece of your emotional self away to someone just to say we had a good time.
Ask someone who has had sex before marrige (it may even be yourself) and they'll tell you that they had a good time while they did it; however, most all will tell you that the long-term implications are what really matter. Every time two people have sex, they release hormones that literally bond them together emotionally. If you keep doing this over and over with every guy or girl you happen to like at the time, you give a piece of yourself to each person until there is nothing left to give. Sex then becomes just a routine.
Is this what we want our children to do? Let them have a good time at the expense of their soul? Do we just sit back and let our kids tear themselves apart while we could have told them about another way to preserve themselves? Do we want them to give themselves away before they get married, and when they finally do tie the knot, have nothing left to give? The answer is a resounding "no".
"They're just having a good time. What's the problem with it?" The problem is that us as mentors have allowed our future generations to rip themselves apart and have done nothing about it. Do we continue to stand back and not be apart of our kids lives? Never.
The time to act is now.
Well, some 35 years ago I had my first sexual experiences as a teen and only married some 10 years later and not at all with the first mate. I think you would have named me promiscuous. Do I regret it? No way. It was all part of my biography. Some experiences were good, some not, but all took a turn in shaping me. What I do regret, tho, is that in those days we didn't really realize that becoming pregnant was the least of consequences of having sex, so I trusted on hormonal contraception instead of a decent barrier method.
I see no reason why hormonal mature individuals should not have sex if they choose to have it. I just would want to make sure they will make an informed choice, will have a choice (not be forced by a more powerful partner) and will know how to practice true safe sex.
Keep your religion out of this. Thanks.
Out of curiosity, what's your problem with it?
Religions, all religions, need to be kept to the person who believes in them. There's no reason for a parent or anyone else to press their religious beliefs into schools or debates. If there's a reason for it, it should be an actual reason--not one found in a dusty old book.
The rule of any argument states that conclusions need to be backed up with reasons and support. Why do religions "need to be kept to the person who believes in them"? Why shouldn't anyone use their religious beliefs in schools or debates. Again, out of curiosity, why do you see religion this way, especially in a country that promotes freedom of religion? Could you please explain more?
If religious views were pressed on someone from childhood and they blindly follow "a dusty old book" or what their parents believe, you're right; they should shut up. They haven't made the decision for themselves. However, if someone HAS made that decision for themselves, we should respect that choice, no matter if we disagree with it or not, especially in a country where tolerance is taught.
I really do respect your views on religion. I don't agree with them; however, I respect them. Please show the same courtesy to me, especially on a website called "Opposing Views". I've made the concientious choice to follow Christianity .. and you can't get me without my religion. Therefore, I cannot "leave my religion out of this". They're inseprable.
Religion is simply incompatible with reasoned debate. Religion by its very definition is based on dogma and faith in things that are unproven: and using something unproven to argue in a debate is useless. If there's a debate on whether or not same-sex marriage is alright, for example, and the only arguments on one side are religious ones, there's essentially no argument from a legal and logical standpoint. There needs to be a real, logical reason or proof.
I'm not sure why freedom of religion has anything to do with people not using religion to argue a point. I'm not saying people aren't allowed to practice or believe in a religion, but rather that they need to keep it out of debates that are unrelated to religion. If they want to debate theology, fine, but the entire world does not revolve around theology. Logic and laws are secular.
You don't have to leave your religious views out of something: what you do need to do is actually have a reason besides a religious one if you're going to force a (religious) opinion on others. Make sense?
I see what you're saying and it makes sense. Arguments should be logical and be based on something that is concrete. What I'm saying is just that and, surprise, it ties right into my religious beliefs from that "dusty old book".
Like I stated earlier, ask anyone who had sex before marrige and most will tell you that they regret it, due to emotional ties and diseases. I don't want my (future) kids to do something that they will regret, all in the sake of a good time. In a time when the rate of STD's are skyrocketing, I'm going to tell my kids to use abstinence in a sexual decision to keep themselves from getting something that they are stuck with for the rest of their life. That makes logical sense to me. I personally don't want to be stuck with syphillus or gonorrhea.
However, I'll humor you and make this conclusion on sex-ed without religion. It is not the government's role to be influencing the lives of our kids with a class that they could probably learn from their friends; parents should be the ones responsible for guiding their children, not the capital. We all know how much the feds can mess things up. :)
PS: I'm not forcing my views on anyone. People are smart and intelligent, like yourself, and can make their own decisions. This happens to be mine and I'm letting it be known.
I don't want this to come across as a personal attack however you repeated several times that anyone who has had sex before marriage would say that they regret it either thru emotional ties or disease. Well, I had sex before marriage, when I was 16 to be exact and I'm nearly 20 now and I can tell you that I don't regret it one bit. I am still with my first and hope to be forever.
You see, the problem does not lie in "when" a child/teen decides to have sex, but in the way they decide to have sex; and I believe that a lot of kids make a bad decision regarding sex because most are ill-equipped. They are not guided enough and are not prepared with the cold hard facts that can protect them.
I believe children should be strongly warned about the possible/and very likely dangers of sex but also the wonderful things that come with us. Sex is not a bad thing at all; WHENEVER it is done responsibly. It can be a wonderful bonding between two people, fun, and not to mention stress relieving.
The only time sex is bad is whenever uneducated people engage in it.
I believe that kids should learn it from schools because theres absolutely no way that every child's parent (if they even have one) is responsible enough to maturely and thoroughly educate them about sex. However, I believe that it should be stressed and widely accepted that parents DO talk to their children about sex and how to make the most responsible choice possible.
I can't seem to understand why sex is so shamed? Or why we try to ignore sex scenes whenever they unexpectedly appear on a movie scene that we're watching with our children? Why do we ignore these things and give them a negative connotation? If we continue to treat sex like taboo and make our kids think about it as a shameful thing, then we are making it practically impossible for them to feel capable of coming to us or another trusted adult to ask for help, or advice about sex.
Basically, we, even as parents, don't have a right to stop another human being from making their own decisions and living their own lives. We are simply hear to guide them and stay as close to them as possible. And besides, we literally can NOT stop children from having sex, unless you were to literally keep them locked in the house all day, everyday.
"Like I stated earlier, ask anyone who had sex before marrige and most will tell you that they regret it, due to emotional ties and diseases."
I don't regret sex before marriage, and I know many others who feel the same way. In my experience, those who do regret premarital sex tend to give religious reasons, not emotional or medical. Religion loads paramount eternal significance upon sex, but it really isn't a big deal if one understands the risks and takes sensible precautions.
Thank you for using a real argument instead of a religious one: it's appreciated.
However, as a teen myself, I can tell you very surely that teens are going to have sex. Schools and parents should be encouraging abstinence, of course! But leaving teens not knowing what to do if and when the time comes is simply irresponsible.
The reason sex-ed is taught in schools in the first place is so many parents don't want to or find themselves unable to teach it to their children. However, schools have a policy where a parent can pull the student from sex ed and teach it themselves. There's no reason to deprive all teenagers the information that will keep them from getting pregnant or diseased.
Does anyone here really trust the government with matters like this? Whatever happened to the role of parent in this issue?
At my school parents had to consent to sex-ed classes by signing a permission slip before the student could attend. Thus, in many schools parents do have a role in the issue.
Further, parents have the choice to send their child to public school, private school, or homeschool . Look at the Duggar family. They homeschool their kids because they wanted their children to be guided by conservative Christian values in their school life, sex life, and choice of friends. They are part of the quiver-full movement, which argues against the use of birth control and encourage couples to have as many children as possible, hence, their own brood of 18 at this point. This is their opinion on sex ed and education as a whole, and although I don't agree, it is their choice.
My first reaction is similar to that of the presidential debates..All this rhetoric about issues in which no candidate has business making promises. Sex education. Just because it contains the word 'education' in it DOES NOT mean it's the government-school's responsibility. As a property tax owner, I have vested interest in how my money is spent. So do my neighbors who might disagree with me. The solution lies in the middle ground: don't "teach" the material because this debate will never be settled (especially as the 'educators' become more and more socially liberal.
This is yet another reason we homeschool our three children.
I think anyone who looks at this objectively will realize that if we trust schools with moral issues like this then that creates a VERY dangerous slippery slope for ethics and education as a whole.
http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=9142807&nav=menu69_2_12
Issues surrounding sex, sexuality and children will always be clouded by passionate opinions backed by little or no objective evidence or evaluation.
Instead, let's change the variables of the problem without changing the semantics or form too much. Instead of asking whether or not we should educate young people about sex before they have it, let's ask whether we should educate young people about driving a car before they do it.
If we trade marriage as a barrier of sexual freedom for a driver's license as a barrier of legal driving freedom, this plays out pretty simply. Would it be advisable to teach young people how to drive before they get their driver's license? I hope everyone can agree that the answer is "yes".
Given that, what would we do if young people were driving cars without licenses? Should we pretend that it doesn't happen and refuse to teach them how to drive? They shouldn't be driving anyway, but what if they cause a collision and injure themselves? Should we educate them about driving before they are ready to get a driver's license anyway, to improve their ability to make smart decisions and therefore help prevent possible negative consequences? Yes, we should.
That's just driving in general, though. Now, what if those same young kids were buying Ferraris and Lamborghinis by taking out 18-year loans and doubling up their paper routes? Does our obligation to educate now become more pertinent or less so? The kids are now dealing routinely with very precious cargo and extreme negative consequences in the case of mistakes due to inexperience or lack of proper judgment.
So what will it be? Teaching kids how to drive well (even before they probably should drive) to help them become better drivers for their own and others' sake, or ignore the problem and just hope that inexperienced drivers don't kill themselves or drive into your living room?
Back when I was in high school 22 years ago there was only one pregnant girl in the school. Now today, at the same high school there is a daycare and 9 pregnant teens. I recently asked my daughter if she had ever had a sex ed class, and her response was that no she had not but the class would be taught next year when she is a junior. Part of the problem as I see it is that they quit teaching sex ed in school. I had a sex ed class in 6th and 8th grade and even in health class in high school. Today, teaching sex ed in their junior year is way too late, for some they have already had sex by that time, thats the way it is in my neck of the woods. Teaching abstinence will not work, we must teach these kids the cold hard truth, not cover it up with abstinence.
Sex is one of the great pleasures in life. Of course teens should pick their partners carefully and protect themselves, but to tell them "no" is a waste of time. It's perfectly natural to want to get some. These folks need to wake up and put their energy into some other problem.
In my opinion, abstinence-only sex education is a real joke. Do you honestly think that they'll abstain if they want it that bad? Of course not.
I think the ideal "sex education" would recommend abstinence, yet expose students to other means of protection and contraception. Sort of like "we recommend against pre-marital sex, but if you insist on engaging in sexual intercourse before marriage, here are some precautions you should take."
By and large, this form of sex education is very unproductive. By using abstinence-only education, those who are going to have sex anyway will not be aware of the many great forms of contraception and protection that can be used, and put them at an even greater risk. By broadening the scope a little bit, we can make those who insist on engaging in these activities (despite the recommendation against them) more aware of the ways they can take care of themselves.
Abstinence-only sex education: preaching to the choir.
Sex education should be for all, male and female chaste and unchaste, straight and gay. Yes, condoms do have a failure rate, but so do vows of chastity.
Children should be taught the consequences of sexual contact with others, including sexual transmitted disease and pregnancy. Like Saint Augustine, many would pray for chastity - but not yet. For young people like Saint Augustine, information about risk reduction may help to keep them safe while their better selves have a chance to come to the fore.
Of course, some parents don't want their children to be informed about condoms. However, the learning of the great majority cannot be held hostage to the objections of a religious minority.
M. Glass
Public schools are a place to educate youth. This interest is not well served by a program such as "abstinence-only" that is really a restriction of the educational content to only certain things that some groups prefer for political reasons.
Teenagers are not like toddlers, who do what you tell them because they simply and completely respect your authority. Teenagers rebel, they make decisions for themselves. We have a duty to provide them with the information they need to make those decisions.
Abstinence is a strong option for sexual safety, and one that should certainly be stressed in sex ed. But teenagers need to learn about contraception and what kinds of contraception can prevent STDs. They need to learn things that will defend them from stupid myths about pregnancy and STDs. Once they know all that, they may actually *believe* in the benefits of abstinence. Without that, this program will fail in every child who eventually rebels.
While abstinence pledges and abstinence-only sex education may decrease rates of teens having sex while in high school, those same teens are four times more likely to have anal sex and six times as likely to have oral sex, both of which carry considerably more risk for contracting an STD. The problem with these religious groups is that they don't actually care whether actual progress is made, only that the material is in line with THEIR BELIEFS (not anyone else's beliefs, because anyone who doesn't think like they do is immoral and therefore inferior). Although all 50 states experienced a slowdown in their teen pregnancy rates in the late 1990s and early 00s, the states that had the least amount of progress were states with well-established abstinence-only programs at a vast number of their public high-schools (Arkansas, Texas). A number of AO curricula also plainly state a number of things that are simply not true, lying about the failure rate of condoms and their ability to stop HIV.
I don't want my kids to have sexual intercourse until they're married, but at the same time I know I can't control everything they do. As much as it scares me as a father to know that they might make poor choices, it would scare me even more if those choices were made without all of the facts. Abstinence-only sex ed simply does not provide an objective look at all of the facts. Period.
The decision about having pre-marital sex is ultimately one guided by a person's views on the appropriate time and place for sexual activity. The knowledge of how to prevent disease and pregnancy should be mandatory regardless of when an individual chooses to have sex. Abstinence should definitely been taught as the only foolproof way to prevent disease and pregnancy. However, once abstinence ceases to be an option (either in or out of marriage), then what? To equate comprehensive sex education with an endorsement of sexual activity is like saying you shouldn't teach nutrition class with materials on dessert because people might overeat. Ignorance doesn't build wisdom.
I'm a little sci-fi. All girls or boys should have an implant at birth, almost like a tubal clip. After the age of 20 if they both have a job for 5 yrs and have a steady relationship for 5 yrs then they can be granted access to having children. They don't have to be rich. Just committed. There are too many kids with no dads. Too many nut jobs for moms. I had my first at 19yrs old with no direction. I like to think I was a good mom, but in hindsight I sucked. Now I have another 15 yrs later and have the chance to do it right. Or should I say with more maturity. Teenagers are going to have sex regardless. So fix the problem.
Honestly, what gives you the right to decide when people get to have children? While I'd agree with some sort of control on the number of children we can have, and change as a culture, honestly? Forcing jobs and steady relationships in return for children? How un-American is that?