Sexual Education and Abstinence (1 Viewer)

[Lexicographer]

Yeah, but it's probably cheap junk silver.

 

[snapperhead]

Abstinance is fine as long as it is not promoted as the only way. Abstinence arguments however tend to promote religious reasons and exaggerate the negatives of sex which I'm a little cold on.

It is all about giving kids REAL information about sex and not scaring them into submission and often SHAME over the expression of sexual feelings.

Teaching kids about sex does not mean that they will suddenly go out and shag everything and everyone. Most kids are able to exercise their judgment when they know the risks and the best ways to alliviate those risks. Even then they may choose not to have sex.

Abstinence assumes that people are able to keep it. Some people may be able to. Most won't. Policy should be created that takes care of the 'most'. Hence sex ed should be though on the presumption that most people will have sex before marriage - if in that situation.

dont know what you were taught but the 'Catholic' version of the NSW 7-10 PDHPE syllabus (its the NSW syllabus with a few added bits) actively promotes "informed conscience" which is what you are talking about.

*should be pointed out that informed decisions (same thing as informed conscience) iare an active part of the 7-10 PDHPE syllabus as well as it makes up one of the core strands for the 7-10 syllabus (am not familar with the k-6 syllabus but I know the the strands are there also)
*it should be also pointed out that the syllabus has changed in the last two years so please, there is no need to point that out as its still in there*

 

[AsyLum]

If it keeps the thought of 12 year olds fucking each other, then so be it.

 

[Xayma]

If it keeps the thought of 12 year olds fucking each other, then so be it.

Wtf??Should I be suprised it was you who bought the idea of 12 year olds fucking up?

 

[Lexicographer]

I hate stupidity in general, but there's so much of it in popular culture that avoiding it all means being branded an elitist.

 

[glycerine]

Robert m'dear I don't know if it was just different the whole 2 years later I did it... but our sexual ed was always along the lines of "You should only do it if you're sure. It's perfectly ok not to. It is a valid choice and one that you must make for you. These are the pros and cons of sex. These are the dangers - here's how you can combat them IF you choose to have sex. Remember, though, its your choice - it's fine not to have sex".

Which teacher did you have out of interest? I had Gaal for all 4 years so maybe it was just him?

 

[jumb]

I missed the day our sex ed was on. So I tried and filled in the gaps. Being a christian school, I assume that they heavily promoted monogamy and all that stuff.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

i do hospital lessons towards the area that reminds me of tru 'westies' in sydney. ..

the mother about mid to late 20s in her dada cloths.. leading a 8-9 yr old girl with a top that is labelled "Pornstar"

i think its sad that innocence is lost almost without a choice... i think u should hav a lil respect for ure body and once ure about 10-15 u get lessons on what and how u feel and wat is appropriate.. to tell a 10-12 yr old how to give/get oral without some sort of context is just disgusting...

first thing we should teach them is how not to get a disease/infection.... then we teach them how it all works...
teachin responsibility and respect will lead to improvements in ppl's emotional and physical lives..

 

[llamalope]

well considering that george bush apparently says that "no divorced woman will enter the white house", I'm not surprised that they would only teach abstinence in America. However I think that people need to wake up and smell the latex, because as far as i know, this message is just not working. It is better to educate people about the choices they will have to make in regards to doing it/ not doing it and if they chose the former path, what contraception is good, that vatican roulette is not successful, and about diseases and yadda yadda.

Besides.... even if schools try to teach kids that sex should not happen before marriage, they will still be exposed to sex through the media. We aren't living in the dark ages here!!!!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Also as much as I don't like to use the word, the site is "heteronormative" it assumes that only heterosexual issues will be discussed. More so in that it is telling the teens the only safe way is to wait until marriage. Last time I knew any committed monogamous (or even polygamous if it is an isolated group) is safe. So unfortunately those teens who are gay/lesbian or just don't like marriage will never get to have sex

Haha interesting point

 

[ur_inner_child]

DO NOT HAVE SEX
SEX IS BAD
VERY DIRTY
BAD
SEX IS FOR SINNERS
SEX
BAD
NO SEX
NO
DO NOT HAVE SEX
DO NOT
SEX
DO NOT HAVE SEX
DIRTY
NO SEX
BAD
SINNER
VERY BAD
DO NOT HAVE SEX

vs.

If you have sex, use protection

There's this misconception that giving young people negative information about contraception will encourage them not to have sexual intercourse, when all it will do is encourage them not to have contraception, so the strategy backfires," Monica Rodriguez, an official at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, said Thursday.

What kind of comment is that when they think"if you have sex, use protection" will result into a backfire that encourage children NOT to use protection......... what the hell are they thinking if they think promoting abstinence won't encourage children in the same sort of way?

I may have slightly over-exaggerated the abstinence attitude, but ignoring that, i think i may have a valid point.

 

[Jago]

Argonaut, whatever you do, don't overdose on drugs.

DON'T DO IT!

 

[transcendent]

Promotion of Abstinence Only is the promotion of ignorance of the REAL issues. It doesn't prepare teenagers for when situations do not occur as planned. It doesn't give teenagers an educated choice in what THEY should decide to do if anything should happen. Teenagers are instead left to find these issues out themselves instead of having someone guide them through the proper procedures of what is the best solution to these situations.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Don't you think that sort of encourages teenagers to do it? I mean tell someone not to do something and 9 times out of 10 they'll go ahead and do it out of natural curiosity.

isn't that what i said?

 

[2sense]

In the end its the person's right to abstain or not. The US government isn't forcing them to.

 

[Serius]

who cares? it doesnt really affect us. so abstinence is sweeping america... maybe a shitload of them will die of stds and 10-20 yrs from now they will realise that the smart thing to do is promote contracpeption...some fools just have to learn the hard way... these silver ring thing fools deserve every std they get for being ignorant, just as ignorance of the law is not a defence, ignorance of freely available info on contrapaceptions shouldnt be a defence.

so luckily the australian government is sane and promotes contracaption, whilst america slowly turns into another africa, riddled by stds

 

[Generator]

so luckily the australian government is sane and promotes contracaption, whilst america slowly turns into another africa, riddled by stds

Actually, it's the state governments. The Commonwealth had the chance to tie funding to proper sexual education measures (i.e., covering all bases) but Nelson stepped back from the idea... However, we are big on flagpoles, it seems.

 

[townie]

However, we are big on flagpoles, it seems.

maybe there's some hidden sex message there?

 

[llamalope]

it's all Freudian...

 

[Enlightened_One]

As soon as I reads the first post I had a flash of the scene in Mean Girls where the sex ed teacher says: "If you have sex you will get pregnant and die."

So if abstinence is all they teach how much of a percentage population increase will the yanks have over the next five years do you reckon? I somehow don't think kids over there are going to stop having sex.