Sex Education... for 7yr olds... and 'mini-condoms'

[SirHenryGrattan]

There is a direct relationship between sex education and pregnancy. The more sex ed, the more pregnancies. That's been the experience in the UK.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4795056.ece


Judged by its results – not a bad way of judging – sex education has been an utter failure. The increase in sex education here in recent years has coincided with an explosion of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease (STD) far worse than anywhere else in Europe. Since the government’s teenage pregnancy strategy was introduced in 1999, the number of girls having abortions has soared. You might well be tempted to argue that sex education causes sexual delinquency.

Only two months ago the Health Protection Agency reported that a culture of promiscuity among the young had driven the rate of STDs to a record. Almost 400,000 people – half of them under 25 – were newly diagnosed, 6% more than in 2006.

When something fails, the usual procedure is to drop it and try something else. With sex education, the worse it gets, the more people cry out for more of it and earlier. Ministers are considering whether to make schools offer more sex education, offer it earlier and deny parents the right to withdraw their children from it.

[SirHenryGrattan]

Lost of parental authority is an issue.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4795056.ece

More importantly, children and teenagers mature at different ages and come from different backgrounds with different family expectations. You cannot talk the same way to a shy 13-year-old who hasn’t had her first period to another who is well acquainted with the darker recesses of the school bike shed. Some boys are men at 11 and 12, physically; others are children until much later. Some children’s parents find it acceptable that their sons and daughters are having sex at 13, while others would be shocked: you cannot talk to all these children together. It would puzzle and offend them and might do them serious damage. And it undermines the authority of those parents who do not share the values of the teacher, or of the majority of the other pupils. It is wrong to assume that people want equality in such matters. They want differences.

[Mouroux]

Henry,
Can you cite sources?

[Mouroux]

Oh, I see your follow up posts now, thanks.

[cHeal]

Lost of parental authority is an issue.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4795056.ece

More importantly, children and teenagers mature at different ages and come from different backgrounds with different family expectations. You cannot talk the same way to a shy 13-year-old who hasn’t had her first period to another who is well acquainted with the darker recesses of the school bike shed. Some boys are men at 11 and 12, physically; others are children until much later. Some children’s parents find it acceptable that their sons and daughters are having sex at 13, while others would be shocked: you cannot talk to all these children together. It would puzzle and offend them and might do them serious damage. And it undermines the authority of those parents who do not share the values of the teacher, or of the majority of the other pupils. It is wrong to assume that people want equality in such matters. They want differences.

I'd imagine the explosion of teen pregnancies was plenty to do with a major shift in social attitudes toward sex which has made it easier and more attractive to access and talk about it at an earlier age. Society changes and the idea that sex ed is where children first hear or encounter sex is ridiculous in the extreme. I don't believe it should be taught at 8 years old, but most children by the time they are 11/12 will have been exposed to sexual images or discussion.

Telling children to be safe and use protection is a pretty sound message to be sending out.

[Mouroux]

One interesting point in the Times piece on parental authority (the link is dead, so use google cache version --or cite new link) is that children are individuals, with diverse backgrounds, etc. they are not all little clones of some envisaged uniform society! So, yes, some children are upset, some think it's very interesting and exciting. But that makes the issue more complex --and there is still the parental role to consider?

[cHeal]

Parents should be able exclude their children from sex ed. It shouldn't be over visual and as far as the act itself goes it should be explained in as scientific a manner as possible and I think it should be done in first year of secondary school.

One way to scare girls off sex would be to show them that video of two people having sex during a cat scan. I reckon it would put the fear of god into most young girls and freaked me out no end

[Mouroux]

Well, like it or not the European trend is towards a comprehensive approach --the scientific element, the romantic element, the audio/visual companions/dvds, the talk therapy aspect etc. It's just that's it's a sad day when we hear of cases in the UK where 10 year old girls get pregnant and feel comfortable talking with a teacher or designated official about it, but no one bothers to inform the parents, at least until it becomes obvious. It seems as if parents are becoming apathetic, work 9-5, get disillusioned with society in general, the politicians, the religions... and just flop in front of the TV... there is no bonding, no discussion, the attitude is 'oh the experts will take care of it'. Are we really content to live this way? Is this living, or family life? I'm almost starting to feel like the word 'family' is a bad word, like an outdated concept? There is no doubt in my mind that Ireland will eventually follow the UK trends. The only question to ask (preferably now) is why?

[Mouroux]

See:
5 surprising ways your TV is slowly killing you - Behavior- msnbc.com

"Teens who watched a lot of TV that included sexual content were twice as likely to get pregnant, according to a study published in Pediatrics. Once a year for three years, Rand Corporation researchers surveyed 1,461 youngsters — ages 12 to 17."

If that's the case in relation to TV, imagine what the statistics are (or will be) in relation to a porn-saturated internet?

[cHeal]

Well, like it or not the European trend is towards a comprehensive approach --the scientific element, the romantic element, the audio/visual companions/dvds, the talk therapy aspect etc. It's just that's it's a sad day when we hear of cases in the UK where 10 year old girls get pregnant and feel comfortable talking with a teacher or designated official about it, but no one bothers to inform the parents, at least until it becomes obvious. It seems as if parents are becoming apathetic, work 9-5, get disillusioned with society in general, the politicians, the religions... and just flop in front of the TV... there is no bonding, no discussion, the attitude is 'oh the experts will take care of it'. Are we really content to live this way? Is this living, or family life? I'm almost starting to feel like the word 'family' is a bad word, like an outdated concept? There is no doubt in my mind that Ireland will eventually follow the UK trends. The only question to ask (preferably now) is why?

Something I identified during my first full time job (which wasn't that long ago). People have allowed their lives to become incredibly polarized, society appears mostly to have encouraged it, and governments facilitate it. People work jobs they hate so that they don't have to do 101 other things they don't want to do. People have come to believe that if somebody is willing to do it for you, then you should work harder to get money to pay for that service. 1 example:

Teaching children basic maths. Buy your child a stupid computer for christmas that makes maths "fun". Spend 1 hour showing them how to use it and then forget about it. Sure that's what schools are for anyways.

I have seen this happen. People think that as long as they work hard in their careers, everything else should work out. Few parents take any responsibility for their childrens behaviour outside the home, often blaming popular media or the government. The headshop controversy are a perfect case of this. Should the government need to spend money to keep teenagers occupied to avoid anti-social behaviour? Of course not, but the reality is that they have to because parents aren't willing to discipline their children and keep them on the straight on narrow.

Regards internet, I wouldn't let a child of under 12 on the internet, full stop. No facebook or twitter, no games no endless trawls of webjunk. It is a complete waste of anybodies time. Up until the age of 16 internet use should be rigorously monitored as should phone us. I've already made plans for building a house that will have extremely small bedrooms because I don't think that children should have anything in their room, beyond books with which to occupy themselves. As much as possible while in the home all members of a family should be in communal rooms, even if it is just watching tv.

The "family" is protected in our constitution and it is now clear that such protection is pointless. Instead, consumerism should be treated as a threat to our society and its people and the government should be obliged to control its effects. Consumerism is what has destroyed the family unit, not government legislation. Material possessions have become all that many people seek to accumulate, but such possessions undermine communal ownership and thus responsibility. Why work together with your community to provide a sport centre for your children if you can just by a wii or gym membership instead? The feminist movement has also had a massively negative effect on the family unit in this country as well but it would be unfair to blame women for those effects. however in retrospect I feel that it was rushed too much and has now crippled the family unit and perhaps even society to some extent. It will be a long time before we can truly adjust to 2 income families, and in reality it may never happen. Certainly I oppose the concept of a two income family and hope to avoid it, but society the way it is, that may not be possible. That wasn't meant to be a rant against the feminist movement so much as an observation of its effects in the area of discussion.