Welcome to Gaia! ::

Since it was suggested that this be made into a separate topic, I thought I'd make it.

Now, many schools in America teach the abstinence-only programme that the government funds. I wasn't given that programme, being English, so if I miss anything please feel free to point it out. To my knowledge, abstinence-only involves remaining a virgin until marriage and in extreme cases, only having sex to pro-create. It is a controversial programme that has studies which back up that it leads to more teenage pregnancies, not less. Why? Because the teenagers are then far less likely to use contraceptives. This site (I just looked and it's a pro-choice site but I think we can overlook that, I'll do some more checking anyway) illustrates how high the teen pregnancy rate in America is - and puts it down to abstinence-only education.

On the flipside, there is the sex education I got. Comprehensive sex ed about STIs, the development of pregnancy, not giving way to pressure - being able to say "no" until you want to say yes. Different types of contraceptives, their prevention rates and how the condom is the only protectionagainst both STIs AND pregnancy. I don't recall being taughtabstinence ever. But this is England, where we have the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe. This site shows the stats for under-16s and under-18s. Even though this is still lower than the USA, it's still second-highest in the developed world.

Next in the firing line are the parents. Many parents care about their children remaining virgins because they either don't want to seethem get hurt, or they don't want them to get pregnant/get someone pregnant, or simply because they wantthem to remain children. But children grow up and will probably have their own children, which involves what the parents are afraid of lettingthem know as teenagers. Again, I was kinda lucky- at eleven, my mother told me that I wouldn't letjust anyone into my pants (even though she later told me at sixteen that I "shouldn't rush into anything" with my boyfriend of nine months. x.x) I think being taught by your parents that you should go as far as you want with who you want to when you are not interested in sex is a goodidea - it gets into your head for when you DO become interested in sex and encourages you to avoid pressure.

I believe that a great part of the problem is that we are not taught enough about contraceptives. Most people can name two or three - there are twelve different contraceptives. If people were encouraged to make their own decisions about sex, and advised on every method of contraception available, I don't think there would be a problem. Nothing is 100% effective, unfortunately, but two contraceptives together can reduce the risk.

Sexuality shouldn't be repressed - it should be welcomed. What you do should be your choice. But every choice should be informed.

(If anyone thinks I've missed anything, do tell me. And I'm sorry for someof the lack of spaces, this spacebar is a bit broken. >.<)

This reminded me of a thread in the PCG (yes, I lurk on occasion, though rarely for nefarious purposes) about "Purity Balls"--yeah, I thought they were some weird sex toy, too.
My mom taught me far more than I wanted to know about my body and sex, though mostly from a clinical perspective. My dad has never interfered much at all in my and my sister's sex lives, except when she was dating a guy who treated her badly. He even defended me when my mom told me I dressed like a whore--he works with the police department and gets to see real whores quite often. Hell, my parents were even okay when I did what essentially counts as sex work (not stripping or prostitution, bdsm stuff). They're fine with my sister being on birth control and moving in with her fiance.
And they're both Catholic. Pretty much, they acquiesce to the fact that we're both adults, but I don't think us being sexually active bothers them--they trust us to not do anything stupid. They know we know about birth control and STDs; I'd be more worried if my child were clueless about those things.

As for the ball thing:


I consider myself lucky that I can't imagine my dad saying that without laughing. He himself will go on rants about opposition to HPV vaccination and the idea that teaching kids about sex makes them want to have it.

One thing I should point out: the government should make decisions based mostly on science, not morals. If abstinence-only education has been scientifically proven inferior to comprehensive sex ed, it should not be funded.

That sounds really fair. Assuming that parents and students (after a certain age - like say 13) can easily opt out of it.

Let's take over the school system and implement it. *wink*

I don't agree with Abstinence only education. At all.

Sorry, but I don't sympathize with the whole 'keep-it-under-wraps-until-they-take-sex-into-their-own-hands' way of thinking. We need to tell students and children about sex, and about the dangers of it, of pregnancy, of responsibility, of men and how they can ******** you up (that last one doesn't have to be included, that's just a personal addition courtesy of moi. heart ), and of women and how they work in relationships.

Sexual oppenness should be key, I think. Because taking sex, and making it into something that people are scared to talk about is a really negative way of approaching things. It can impact a person's idea of what is normal, it can affect their self-esteem... I don't think being sheltered from sex can do any good.

Sorry if people find promiscuity a problem, because I sure as hell don't. If someone wants to ******** everyone who can breathe, go to 'er, but do it responsibly. 3nodding heart

However, many parents don't feel comfortable teaching their children about sex, and would prefer that the schools teach them. As they pay for schools (through taxes) shouldn't they be allowed to request that schools teach this?

Also, sex is a natural function of the human body, and so any health class should at least mention it. For high school students who want to go into medicine (or just want to be informed), it is necessary to learn about sex from a biological and health stand point.

One could just as easily (though far more pettily) argue that teaching children to wash their hands is a function of parents, not the schools. So why don't we ban this bit of forcing teachers to parent others' children? Because some parents don't teach their children this, and so someone has to do it.

Maybe, if everyone had perfect parents and access to simple, factual information (not propaganda or occasionally outright lies -- i.e. having sex will cause you to die; condoms always work; etc.) about every subject there would not be a need (or a want) for Sex Ed in schools. However, since people are still human, there are kids who would never get any good information about sex from any source other than the schools.

This is why many people, including myself, feel that Sex Ed needs to be taught in Public Schools.

But sex education is not parenting, and education is not a function of parents. Sure, they can teach their children, but they usually use textbooks written by experts and the children must take state mandated tests. Parents aren't all experts on biology and psychology--why should they be trusted to teach as if they were?

Of coarse, thats the parents right, now isnt it?

I disagree. This is a child's future we're talking about, they themselves have a right to know about what is available to them. It's the parents right to attempt to ensure specific values are followed by their children however they have no right to force their children to believe those things, ESPECIALLY by means of ensuring that their children are ignorant about that subject.