Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Sex education definitely has its benefits, there's no doubt about that.

But I do believe there are some negatives too. Benefit: Knowledge of how to protect yourself against STDs or unwanted pregnancy through safe sex. This is a great damage limitation method for the kids that do go out and become sexually active. Negative: It may cause a little too much inquisitiveness or curiousity in younger children (hence the rise in 12yr olds getting pregnant). We are still in the end, telling them HOW to have sex. Not all kids will comprehend the desired effect of sex Ed, and some less mature ones may see it as a lesson in how to have sex rather than an informative discussion for future reference.

Benefit: Kids can be taught that they should not engage in sexual activity until they are ready. Not to be pushed or pressured into it by anybody. This is great to help kids understand that sex should be a mutually comfortable and pleasant experience. Negative: I did not understand fully what intercourse entailed until 11. Therefore I did not feel "ready" until 16. I'd had 5yrs to get my head around it and meet someone I felt comfortable with. However, my peers who were aware of sex from the ages of 9 or younger, and had longer to get used to the idea, ALL had underage sex! In teaching younger kids nowadays, that sex is for mature individuals, some are in a rush to grow up and feel that sex will make them adult like.

8 months ago

well people of lesser intelligence often claim that educating people about sex will lead to promiscuity. this is clearly wrong but it is a con. also they feel it takes power from the family, as in sex should be learned from parents instead of teachers. but this is also wrong since parents often dont talk about it at all or give false information to keep their kids from having sex

Catholic view From the Catholic perspective, it is the parents who have the prime responsibility for educating their children about human sexuality. Although this responsibility can never be entirely delegated, teachers in Catholic schools assist parents with this vitally important task, which already has a place in the general curriculum. In NSW, Catholic schools follow the Board of Studies curriculum, which includes primary and secondary syllabuses in Personal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE). Issues of relationships and sexuality are dealt with in these programs. The primary syllabus, for instance, requires teachers to deal with reproduction, puberty, menstruation and sexual identity at some stage of primary schooling. The secondary syllabus is more comprehensive and includes rights and responsibilities in sexual relationships and issues associated with sexuality (e.g. consent, privacy, safe sex, contraception, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases). Catholic schools provide a very clear moral framework and perspective that guides the treatment of these topics in schools. A Catholic curriculum document Teachers are helped to teach the PDHPE syllabuses from a Catholic perspective using two separate publications one for primary and one for secondary called Towards Wholeness (see page 5). These have been published by the NSW Catholic Education Commission. Sex education is not confined to PDHPE. When appropriate, some instruction may be given in Religious Education lessons and within the general pastoral responsibilities of the school.

Moral principles For Catholics, education in human sexuality touches the most sacred aspects of reality: healthy growth to maturity; the development of loving relationships that contribute to this; and the creation of human life. For this reason, Catholic schools work on the principle that sexual information and moral principles should be integrated. In instructing their students in these sensitive areas, Catholic school teachers have a serious responsibility to provide information, interpretation and advice in ways that are consistent with Catholic teaching. Sex education in the home Here are five ideas for parents to consider when developing their own family approach to sex education. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The most effective education in human sexuality begins at home. Here the child observes the parents positive attitude to the human body and their demonstration of courtesy and deep affection towards each other and their children. Children should learn that their sexuality is a great gift from God. Its appropriate use is part of Gods plan for the human race. Childrens natural curiosity and questions about the human body should be responded to willingly and calmly, with their level of maturity in mind. Children should be given correct names for their various parts of their bodies. These terms are not rude or dirty. Children can be shown how to use them in an appropriate way. When speaking with children about sexuality, it is important to link biological information with such Christian values as respect for human life and dignity, love and family, responsibility and faithfulness.

Earlier this year, Federal Parliament heard a proposal from a government backbencher that a comprehensive sex education program should be made compulsory in all Australian schools. The proposal sought to link this requirement to government funding of individual schools, with particular focus on contraception. While this suggestion was not adopted by the government, it did raise the question of what kind of sex education is appropriate in Catholic schools.

Sex Ed

In a previous article, we discussed the importance of fully understanding both sides of an argument. In this case the subject happens to be including sex education in school health education classes. Previously, we discussed the benefits of having sex education as a part of a health education program (along with many other aspects of health education). Now we will go further into why parents are against having school health education programs, and sex education in particular. Although religious families are the majority when it comes to being against health education in school, it is important to understand that they are not the only ones. Below you will find the top reasons why parents of all races and religions are against school health education programs. Sexualization of the youth Many people believe that exposing children to sex at an early age through a health education class will cause them to have sex earlier than they should. This argument does have some merit, and that is why there should be boundaries set about at what age school health education classes should start sex education. Many children have the same urges that adults do, they just do not know what they mean. Providing an eight year old with in depth details about sex in a health education class is not a route we should be taking. Contraception This is something that will most likely only apply to religious groups. There are religions that do not believe that any type of contraception should be used during sex, and that is a major part of sex health education. Parents do not want their children to learn things that are contradictory to their religion in school health education programs, especially when the issue of sex is still taboo in so many families. This same reason is actually why many people advocate school health education, they do not want the beliefs of a parent to negatively affect their child. Whether or not that type of decision is the parents decision to make is still under debate. Parents choice It is the view of many people that the parents should have the right to teach their children about sex if they choose and it should not be the responsibility of the schools to provide a sex health education class. While this may seem like a good idea, many parents do not have the resources or knowledge necessary to teach their children about sex the way that school health education can. This notion has been carried out partially though. If a parent does not want their child to attend a sex health education class, they can write a note to get them out of it. This may make the child feel left singled out and cause other kids to ask questions though.

Both sides of the school health education debate have been laid out more or less at this point. Now it is up to you to decide whether learning about sex belongs in a health education program.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS Sex education has become the most hotly debated topic in American elementary education. In recent months, a carefully orchestrated campaign led by political conservatives has embroiled one school district after another across the nation in angry argument over sex courses. State legislatures have argued the subject; school-board and P.T.A. meetings have been disrupted by angry opponents of sex education, who have sometimes labeled its advocates Communist sympathizers and proponents of "psychological VD." The nationwide offensive against sex education was a major topic at this month's annual convention of the National Education Association, which passed a resolution strongly reaffirming its support for the courses. The attack on sex education began last fall with the publication of an angry little pamphlet called "Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?" This diatribe was produced by the Christian Crusade of Tulsa, a right-wing, anti-Communist organization headed by Fundamentalist Preacher Billy James Hargis. The pamphlet focused on the Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S., a nonprofit health organization that advises schools on sex-education courses. The council's director, Dr. Mary S. Calderone, a nationally recognized authority on sex education, was accused of "tossing God aside . . . to teach American youth a new sex morality independent of church and state," and of telling young people about "their right to enjoy premarital intercourse . . . if they so desire." Filthy Plot. The Crusade's crusade was quickly taken up by the John Birch Society, whose founder, Robert Welch, decided that sex education was a "filthy Communist plot," akin to community fluoridation plans. So far, communities in 35 states have become embroiled in disputes over sex courses, inspired by such colorfully named parents' organizations as Sanity of Sex (S.O.S.), Parents Against Universal Sex Education (PAUSE), and the Movement to Restore Decency (MOTOREDE). Although the unsubtle hand of the Christian Crusade and the Birch Society can be detected in most of these groups, the campaign against sex education has enlisted the support of many concerned citizens without right-wing affiliations who oppose the courses on religious or psychological grounds. Opponents of sex education raise a wide variety of charges some plausible, some notagainst the courses. At the lowest level, the attacks consist of nothing more than innuendoes that the teachers involved are degenerates eager to seduce youngsters into a life of blatant immorality. A more serious argument is that such courses are too specific, too early and too stimulating. Miami Psychiatrist James Parsons, for example, actively opposes any sex education in primary schools because "there is a latency period, between the age of six and the time of puberty, of sexual interest." Forcing sex education on children in this period can cause them to "become overstimulated and obsessed" and can "produce perversion in adults." Still other critics of the courses argue that the schools are illicitly taking over an educative function that properly belongs in the home or with the churches. Supporters of sex courses include an impressive variety of medical, religious and governmental groups. While they are in agreement that the basic responsibility for teaching children about sex rests with parents, many educators add that too many parents have abdicated their responsibilities, because of incompetence or neglect. Answering persistent complaints that the courses prematurely draw attention to sex, Dr. Calderone points out: "Sex is so intrusive and our culture is so permeated with sexual messages that planned and relevant sex-education programs are vital now." As for Parsons' argument about the latency period, she argues that "sex is so ubiquitous now that the child is getting sexual information from the time of birth." According to a recent Gallup poll, 71% of adult Americans approve of sex education in one form or another. Under the concerted conservative attack, the programs are being questioned and even halted in many areas. Notably, boards of education in three California cities have been sued because of sex courses by citizen groups charging invasion of privacy. Legislators in Arizona, California, Iowa, New Jersey, New York and Oklahoma have recently debated the merits of sex-education programs. Last May, New York's Governor Nelson Rockefeller approved a conservative-backed law withholding state funds from sex education courses, and a similar bill has been proposed in Congress to withhold federal monies. Tennessee has adopted a new law making it a misdemeanor for a teacher to present sex courses without prior approval of both the state government and local boards of education.

Health and Development. The very term "sex education" is a trifle misleading, because almost all programs include sex courses only as part of a broader study of health and human development. To be sure, the courses and their teachers vary considerably both in quality and competence. Typically, the programs include study of family living, growth, hygiene and, in the higher grades, responsible social behavior, the hazards of indiscriminate relationships and premarital sex, as well as basic facts about the reproductive system and its purpose. In many schools, parents can request that their children not participate. The strongest opposition to sex courses comes from the middleaged; more often than not, it reflects their discontent with the changes taking place in a world different from that in which they grew up. The schools, for their part, are obviously not responsible for creating today's sexual revolution; they are merely trying to help students cope with it. To eliminate these courses is to deny many children access to essential knowledge that can ease their difficult psychic transition from adolescence to adulthood.