This is a well discussed matter substantially everywhere. At which age it should be not only correct, but necessary to teach sexual education in the schools?
I'm not sure a simple age limit is the best way to think about it. I'd see sex education as an on-going process throughout secondary/high school, starting with general biology, on to lessons incorporating facts about birth control and pregnancy before moving on to more practical information and guidance about what they should do regarding sex. In my experience with young people (and older ones for that matter), as much of the issue with sex education is a lack of grounding in the basic principles behind it as actually convincing them not to sleep around or to use protection. It helps to eliminate some of the myths and misnomers surrounding the subject.
Growing up on a farm I knew how that all worked by kindergarten. The BJ-Kitty Lick I figured out by about 5th grade or so. Sex ed doesn't have a place in schools. If the kid is too stupid to figure it all out elsewhere let him join the military. They need more mindless '***** to : "just doing my job sir".
Nicely put. I believe that sex education does a lot to dispel false beliefs. I wonder how many teens got pregnant while believing that the pull-out method worked. I find teen pregnancy to be tragic -- especially in this day and age when it's so expensive to raise a child. An ounce of prevention...
Good opinion, may be we could differentiate the poll country by country. For example, even if in absolute numbers are comparable, in England the pregnancy among girls under 15 is a real plague [about 8,000 girl get pregnant per year], while here in Italy the phenomenon is a bit later in its pick [around 16-17]. And we have to keep into consideration that sex ed, to be understood, requires a certain level of "awareness" and responsibility which are not so easy to meet in very young teens. And this is the source of the problem: just in England they have proposed compulsory sexual education from elementary schools [! they talk about 5 years old children ...], because the present sex ed program [which is already really early] doesn't work as expected [investigations among young teens have demonstrated that they don't trust teachers about asking direct questions].
Don't believe what you read in tabloid newspapers. Nobody in England is suggesting sex education for five year olds.
Sex ed should be taught at the very beginning of puberty, so 10-11 years of age. That is given by human biology. Of course, in a manner that is appropriate for age.
It should start at home, when parents think their child is ready to absorb age appropriate information.
Generally correct, but about this point there are cultural aspects to keep into considerations. And these cultural aspects could affect the parental sexual education. For example in a traditional country like Italy, it's said that the mother should tell the teens something about sex at 12 ... but it's extremely rare that this happens for real [note: the mother tells the teens, not the father; at least this is the most traditional custom]. This "modesty" usually leaves teens alone when they begin to face the changes of their bodies. So the educational system should compensate for this lack. Personally I discovered all by myself [I lived with my mother who was religious] with the "help" of my mates at school. When I had classes of sexual education in the last years of the High School I had already known that "field". But I realized that "experience" is not exactly equal to "knowledge", with all connected risks. In any case, my point is that without previous experience, it's difficult to acquire a comprehensive knowledge in such a sensitive field of life. To make it simple: if we take a teen, at 11-12, yet without sex desire towards the other gender, will this teen acquire knowledge about sex or simply "notions"? [Like to study a book of biology]. Of course it's a matter of perspective. May be a variable approach could be the most suitable.
If your concern is in regard to how long we should protect the innocence of the children, then your concern is misplaced. The vast majority of kids are aware of sexuality prior to entering school, just as they are aware that Mom and/or Dad are really Santa Claus. The schools don't need to make kids aware of sexuality. Instead, the schools need to teach kids the truth about how pregnancy occurs and how sexually transmitted diseases are propagated. Sexual morality is something that should be addressed by the parents in the home, since few of us agree as to what is morally acceptable sexual behavior.
I would start at age 8 maybe 3rd grade and go up from there starting with things like sexual orientation and that its okay to be different to in high school in depth sex education by the end of sophomore year with videos and talking to say cross dressers and prostitutes to learn about those peoples lives.
That's an interesting perspective regarding sexual education. Why would you choose to teach only sexual deviancy?
Calling it 'sexual' education is the first mistake. It's about biology, physiology, and reproduction of all species...
Well I would cover everything including when older birth control, sexual phases of pleasure, sex positions and all by the time they leave High School there should be no secrets cover the normal and other things but start simply like some families have two daddies, two mommies, a daddy and two mommies or a mommy and two daddies or two daddies and two mommies etc. or just a mommy or a daddy and all are fine. To the former things.
Oh... I see. You were merely being silly. Nothing wrong with that. It is a fairly common reaction for someone to resort to humor when confronted with an issue that makes them feel uncomfortable.
