I think it's something that needs to be a parental job because how are you going to know what the school's going to teach your kid? I mean, what is their game plan there anyway? 'Oh the risks of sex are unwanted pregnancies and an assortment of STD's so we'll give you some condoms and you won't have to tell your parents a thing'. Yeah, keep the parents in the dark about what's going on with their own kids, that always turns out swell, doesn't it? After all it's not like the parents gave birth to and raised the kids for 13 years...oh wait, they did, but their kids' sex lives is none of their business? Yeah, talking to your kids about sex is awkward, but so is life...you had those kids, you shouldn't get a get out of jail free card for every hard subject to be discussed with them.

I see nothing wrong with Sex Ed. My parents, as strict as they were, let me participate and I let my daughter participate as well. 'Sex Ed.,' at least when I was in school, was always more about a study of biological maturity during puberty, with a very general touch on matters relating to sex on top of it.

I remember when I was in the 7th grade, we had that HGAD unit of Science class, and a friend of mine's mother wouldn't let him participate. He had to go sit in the school library for an hour during that week. He tried to play it off like "oh well....", but he had to be embarrassed that out of 20 something kids in the class, he was the one (the only one) whose parent wouldn't let him sit in on the discussion/lesson.

Apparently learning about ovaries and testicular hair (from a textbook perspective) was is going to corrupt a preteen.

Obviously parents have the right to opt their kids out, but I don't see why they would.

Well the thing I never got is that when asked about the subject, NO mother (none that I've talked to anyway) wants the school talking to her daughter about her period, that apparently NEEDS to be the mother's job, but to talk to them about sex and the facts of sex and the risks and consequences and all that? Oh yeah, that's not so important, the school can handle it. Okay, why can't the school handle informing your daughter about her period then?

I think Sex Ed is a joke for the most part, if only because it's basically used to bail the parents out of conversations THEY should be having with their children.

Exactly, it's getting to the point I wonder why kids even go back home at the end of the day since they spend most of their time at school, and they're trained that most of their life has to be spent at school, that's where their friends are (apparently where some people are concerned, kids NEVER see other kids anywhere EXCEPT school and can't socialize ANYWHERE except at school), that's where all their groups and teams are, that's where their friends the teachers who won't tell their parents anything are, etc. Why not just sign the kids over to the schools completely at the rate they're going?

Sex ed is crap. It's a parent's job to talk with their kid about sex and we gotta stop doing a parent's job for them. (And let's be real, of all the subjects in school, sex is the one thing we know the parents are fairly learned in. xD)

I also don't want schools telling my kids that it's okay to have sex at their age and just handing them condoms when they are barely passed puberty. Sexual education is a joke. Schools don't have any business teaching it. I do feel parents should be able to opt out, but heck, why should they have to? If a parent wants their kids to learn the art of boinking, they can sit them down and have a little talk. The school needs to butt out.

As for the school being more qualified, I've really found that to be crap. I've seen "qualified" teacher results and I must say, I am not impressed. Most parents probably got this same talk so I don't feel them any less qualified than the teacher to give it. Sex Ed is not important, not in a classroom anyway. It's something parents need to do with their kids themselves. The schools honestly need to STFU about it because I honestly do think they're done more harm with it than good.

I think the first time I had any kind of "Sex Ed" was in the 5th grade and from there it continued well into high school, but I can't remember a single time when any teachers said it was "okay" to have sex or when I walked out of the classroom hornier than ever to go do it because of all that chalkboard knowledge I just got.

Objections to Sex Ed are senseless.

That "it's a parents job" crap is completely glossing over the bigger picture. Yes it was my parents job to talk to me about sex and answer any general questions I had from a personal level as best they could, but my mother and father weren't biology teachers. They didn't know the specifics about growth hormones or various facts about random this and that. That's where Sex Ed. at school came in. The teachers are trained to talk more thoroughly about the subject from a scholastic perspective. To break down about things like X/Y chromosomes, recessive genes, how and when a sperm fertilizes an egg, sexually transmitted disease, etc.

If Sex Ed is wrong, then so is phys ed, home economics or anything else taught in school that isn't based on generic 1+1=2 or C-A-T cat. Furthermore while it is a parents job to talk to their kids about personal and sexual matters, the truth is that many don't and so it's beneficial for those kids to get some kind of proper knowledge of the subject from somewhere.

JM130ELM wrote:

Yes it was my parents job to talk to me about sex and answer any general questions I had from a personal level as best they could, but my mother and father weren't biology teachers. They didn't know the specifics about growth hormones or various facts about random this and that. That's where Sex Ed. at school came in. The teachers are trained to talk more thoroughly about the subject from a scholastic perspective. To break down about things like X/Y chromosomes, recessive genes, how and when a sperm fertilizes an egg, sexually transmitted disease, etc.

I was home schooled and never got 'the talk' from anybody in my family, and I still knew about sex by the time I was 9, more in details when I was 12 and 13. It's not like kids don't have any way to find out about sex if teachers don't talk to them...I found out about it first in medical books and then magazines and the rest of it came from teen help sites on the internet, and I got more accurate information than a lot of people seem to get.

^^^ Why do you insist on using you're skewed personal experience to justify or not the need for something? A preteen learning about sex and having to find out on his/her own is completely stupid. Yeah, don't teach about sex in school....have someone look it up on a damn website or a magazine if they want to know. Forget having a qualified biology teacher. Sex education doesn't teach kids to go and fuck. They arm them with pertinent information. Information that is broken down and explained to him/her on an individual level.

I think Sex Ed. is just as important as any other lesson kids might learn in school. Kids need to learn about sex, and whether it comes from a teacher or from a parent, it doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is that the kid is well-educated and knows what's going on. With me, everything related to development and sex was thoroughly discussed, and that's the way it should be. Kids should be informed, and I think it's petty to argue about whether it comes from a teacher or a parent.

I think it's really important, Many parents aren't comfortable talking about it and school is a place for learning, esp. when many parents aren't teaching their kids about healthy sexual habits. Kids are curious and I'd far rather have them learning about sex from a qualified teacher, or resources, than seeking it out on their own. It's great if parents are willing and able to talk to their kids, but more often than not, that's not the case, and that's when it's really important in schools.

Should "Abstinence-Only" sex-ed be taught in public schools?

femme fatale wrote:

Should "Abstinence-Only" sex-ed be taught in public schools?

I've never heard one good argument against it. Do we want to ensure beyond any doubt that kids will not get STDs or pregnant? Then teach abstinence. Tell them NO. They can't always get what they want. Part of an adult is exercising self-control and responsibility. If they can't say NO to sex, they are not ready to have sex. Condoms break, especially in the hands of minors and there's only so much they're going to learn from a banana. Kids also tend to be absentminded about condoms even if they are told to use them.

If parents want their kids to have sex, they have the freedom to tell them to ignore the school. But as far as schools are concerned, all they should be teaching is abstinence. If a kid wants to ride a motorcycle off a cliff, what is the best advice to give him to ensure his survival? Wear a helmet, or don't do it? Sure, wearing a helmet might save his life, but not doing it at all WILL save his life. That doesn't mean that you support him riding off the cliff without a helmet, you just want him to stay away from the friggin cliff.

Yeah, it's an unpopular belief I'm sure. But since I don't believe sex ed should even be taught in schools, I feel abstinence only is the way to go, at least while the kids are in high school and are underaged anyway. I don't think we need to be encouraging underaged sex. If they do it, they do it anyway and what happens is on them. We can inform them of what can happen if they do it so if they do it unprotected, they got nobody to blame but themselves. If they want to have sex, it's time they started proving that they are adult enough for it and that requires not having the teacher walk them through it. So yes, abstinence only all the way. There's no good argument against it, even if we support the idea of kids doing it. That's because telling them to be anything other than abstinent is encouraging reckless behavior.

^ What exactly do you think Sex ed consists of? Because from the tone of your posts, you sound as if you think it's some kind of how-to seminar on how to get lucky. 50+% of it speaks more about biological growth during the stages of adolescence (do you have a problem w/that as well?) than it does sexual activity.

In every sex ed class I can remember, the instructor would make it plain that abstinence is a viable option and the only method against STDs and unwanted pregnancies that was full proof. HOWEVER, since young people are hormonal and since many will seek to be sexually active, it would be irresponsible for any sex ed program to not note various options (birth control and condom-usage) that stand to reduce risk IF sex is a decision they should make, and whether you like it or not, to have sex or to not have sex is their decision.

What you're promoting (abstinence-only sex ed) is nothing but propaganda, which would inadvertently promotes sex more than standard sex ed classes do. Types like you would rather keep kids totally in the dark about reality, or use scare tactics to manipulate them into following your personal way or agenda.

50+% percent of it? So almost half of it doesn't speak to the biological aspects? Okay....... If sex ed taught only biology, I doubt it would still even be an issue. We both know it doesn't stop there.

It is their decision. But schools shouldn't promote their irresponsibility. It's not irresponsible of the school to tell them NO, you shouldn't be doing this, especially at your age. It's merely giving them effective directions that they can choose to follow or reject. If I give somebody directions to my house, and they choose to take a different route, it's their own fault if they get lost. I also feel that in the modern age, kids don't need schools to tell them about condom usage. If kids are so sheltered that they don't know what a condom is, they probably wouldn't even be in a public school is the first place. To tell kids that they should be abstinent but then forward excuses for them to not be is double speaking.

Types like me? Can types like you ever argue without making it personal? You say I'm a propagandist, I say you are the propagandist. Types like you would rather have kids with STDs then tell them NO for once in their lives. (No I don't actually mean that but I was just trying on your finger pointing suit for a minute. ) I don't intend to keep kids in the dark about reality. I am all for showing them reality, which is why I support abstinence only sex education. I am for telling kids how it IS, not how they WANT it to be. Telling kids that their choices have consequences is not scaring them. True abstinence sexual education does not lead to more sex. "Because I say so" ones might, and certainly handing out condoms will.(BTW, why do we even ask questions on this board if we're not allowed to answer without being personally insulted. Gosh) I'm not the side who's for sheltering kids from reality.

If schools wanna teach biology, let them teach biology. But schools are doing the job a parent should do these days. And yes, no matter how you spin it, sex ed that doesn't teach just abstinence doesn't teach abstinence at all, and it promotes sex and promiscuity. That's how it is when you step back and think about it. I frankly don't think we need to encourage irresponsibility. And yes, promoters who promote your method of sex ed. do just that. (Yes I can make accusations too. We can go on all day. Why is it you can't discuss this normally?)

femme fatale wrote:

Should "Abstinence-Only" sex-ed be taught in public schools?

Hell no, they obviously don't work...and I really gotta wonder, HOW do you base an entire class around 'just don't do it'? Seriously, how much time per day of the semester could that actually take?

Supernova wrote:

Hell no, they obviously don't work...and I really gotta wonder, HOW do you base an entire class around 'just don't do it'? Seriously, how much time per day of the semester could that actually take?

Hence why I think they could just cut that class out altogether. xD Teach biology and leave it at that.

No schools should not be pushing for abstinence only Sex-Ed, because what will most likely happen is that the curricular and overall tone will become sex-negative, duplicitous, slanted and skewed in order to placate that partisan. Students will be told all about teenage pregnancy, AIDS and other STDs while simultaneously being led to believe that safer-sex methods are practically guaranteed to fail. Like JM said, it would become this big old game of manipulation to con the kids into falling in line with their beliefs!

When it comes to Sexual Education, the schools should lay out all the facts (and all the choices) from an unbiased, non-tyrannical perspective. Then encourage the students to make an informed decision that works best for them, based on all the information that is provided. If they come to the conclusion that it is all too convoluted for them to handle and that they would be better off abstaining, that is wonderful. If they decide to go ahead and have sex, but are as precautious as they can be, then that's good too.