Turn on thread page Beta

Sex Ed watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Its unworkable; how can you ensure everyone receives the same information or level of information when its in the hands of parents? At least at school progress and attainment can be assessed, how do you do that at home?
    the parent chooses WHAT information, what progress is being made and how much the child should know..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Fine for decent parents, not fine for crap parents.
    Crap parents should be separated from their children.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Schools should IMO teach geography and math, stay out of the bedroom, and leave sex education to parents.
    I disagree I think that the government and schools should be responsible for making teenagers aware of sex and safe sex. This is esspecially important in an age where there are many cases of STD's. Teenagers need to be taught how to protect themselves and there are parents who won't teach them things like how to use condoms ect. I think the government does have the right to make sure children are taught about sex because Britain has such a high teenage pregnancy rate that the government has to deal with. I believe that sex education should be compulsary at school and the religious or ethical beliefs associated with sex should be taught by the parents.

    The fact of the matter is that most teenagers no about sex anyway and need to be informed about safe sex because many of them are having sex unsafely as proven by the high pregnancy and std's in this country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_957945.html?menu=

    Do you think sex ed should be compulsary despite religious or other objections.
    I think it should be. I´m lucky as it´s compulsory where I live.
    We had to roll condoms on a dildo and stuff...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_957945.html?menu=

    Do you think sex ed should be compulsary despite religious or other objections.
    If you do not learn sex-ed in the class-room, then where, through experimenting with others or leave it up to the parents to expain it all. Without sex-ed, some children would be completely oblivious to the dangers of sexual predators that exist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    And if that entails telling the child absolutely nothing?
    thats the decision of the parent!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    first aid is generally a universal knowledge of universal benefit. sexual education is not. even if there were no difference, i dont have a problem with the state stressing the need for children to be informed.
    If it is universal knowledge - why would there be a need to teach it?

    If the qualifier is that it is universally beneficial then many would claim the same applies to sex ed. Your point is not that it is not beneficial - but that it is the parent's choice.

    The fact is, if sex ed can prevent aids, STDs in general, pregnancies that are unwanted (and hence trauma and unwanted births) the state should provide it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I disagree I think that the government and schools should be responsible for making teenagers aware of sex and safe sex. This is esspecially important in an age where there are many cases of STD's. Teenagers need to be taught how to protect themselves and there are parents who won't teach them things like how to use condoms ect. I think the government does have the right to make sure children are taught about sex because Britain has such a high teenage pregnancy rate that the government has to deal with. I believe that sex education should be compulsary at school and the religious or ethical beliefs associated with sex should be taught by the parents.

    The fact of the matter is that most teenagers no about sex anyway and need to be informed about safe sex because many of them are having sex unsafely as proven by the high pregnancy and std's in this country.

    I think this all depends on how you view the role of the State. And this of course depends on your politics.

    IMO, it's not the role of the State to provide sex education.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think in the end the idea that sex ed is different is due to the view that sex is somehow an area of polarised morality - which it is wrong to intrude upon. However, as piggy (can I call ya piggy?) points out this is a broader principle than one may think. Indeed its the same one that has led schools in Alabama (or maybe Arkansas) To ban the teaching of evolution. Parent's have rights - but when kids get sick or pregnant - its the state and ergo the rest of us that have to pick up the pieces for a parent's failures.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I think this all depends on how you view the role of the State. And this of course depends on your politics.

    IMO, it's not the role of the State to provide sex education.
    Like I say then - that means its not to role of the state to INFORM and prevent unwanted births or STDs but it IS its job to take care of the children, and provide medical care? Seems rather inefficent to me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    If you do not learn sex-ed in the class-room, then where, through experimenting with others or leave it up to the parents to expain it all. Without sex-ed, some children would be completely oblivious to the dangers of sexual predators that exist.
    Can't parents teach their children about sexual predators? My parents taught me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    If it is universal knowledge - why would there be a need to teach it?

    If the qualifier is that it is universally beneficial then many would claim the same applies to sex ed. Your point is not that it is not beneficial - but that it is the parent's choice.

    The fact is, if sex ed can prevent aids, STDs in general, pregnancies that are unwanted (and hence trauma and unwanted births) the state should provide it.
    The state does provide it, all-be-it in a very limited fashion. in year 6 you are given sex ed. At secondary school you will do units about it in science and get taught about STDs and protection in PSE but that is about it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    The state does provide it, all-be-it in a very limited fashion. in year 6 you are given sex ed. At secondary school you will do units about it in science and get taught about STDs and protection in PSE but that is about it.
    I know I was saying that its right to do so, ergo the "should".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Like I say then - that means its not to role of the state to INFORM and prevent unwanted births or STDs but it IS its job to take care of the children, and provide medical care? Seems rather inefficent to me.
    Again, it depends on your opinion on what the State should and shouldn't be doing.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Can't parents teach their children about sexual predators? My parents taught me.
    yes parents can teach their children no one is denying that. I got very good sex ed from my parents before I had it at school. But teaching it at school protects those teenagers whos parents can't/won't teach them about safe sex ect. Personally I think that this isn't a case of parents being allowed to determine what their children are taught bacause it puts the children at risk.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Again, it depends on your opinion on what the State should and shouldn't be doing.
    It does indeed - do you think that when 13 year olds get sick with an STD or have an unwanted baby the State shoudl tell em that's their tough luck? I suppose thats a potential political view - is it one you hold?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Can't parents teach their children about sexual predators? My parents taught me.
    Most parents do, it's just that some parents will find it difficult or embarrassing to explain these things to their children. Fair enough, children can be warned against these threats without being taught about sex, but that can lead to potential abuse without the child actually knowing it is wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    I know I was saying that its right to do so, ergo the "should".
    I am saying they should broaden the education to include more than the basics of sex and common sense. One thing that I was never told was that sex was not something that should be done freely, especially at that age (11/12).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    I am saying they should broaden the education to include more than the basics of sex and common sense. One thing that I was never told was that sex was not something that should be done freely, especially at that age (11/12).

    I think it depends on your school really. I had really good sex ed from y7 to y11 ranging from what happens to different forms or contrception. Putting condoms on plastic penises. I was given a baby think it over doll for a weekend. We learnt about the emotional effects are and did roll plays on how to say know ect. We were always made aware of the local clinic ect. Basically it was great so I think that schools should be encouraged to do more to teach about the mental side of it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    It does indeed - do you think that when 13 year olds get sick with an STD or have an unwanted baby the State shoudl tell em that's their tough luck? I suppose thats a potential political view - is it one you hold?
    I think what you are saying is that there is an obvious perversion of logic in a State not taking responsibility for sex education but remaining responsible for welfare of one sort or another. I take your point.

    However, there seems to be very little evidence that teaching of SE can be linked to a reduction in unwanted pregnancy and STD's.

    1950 Britain? Teaching SE in schools? Not done. Teenage pregnancy minimal. STD's? The clap if you're really unlucky.

    2004 Britain? SE taught. Condoms distributed at school. Much much greater awareness. Teenage pregnancy and STD's through the roof.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.