Now that I have witnessed "moral progress" up close and in person: Are we supposed to be impressed?

[Locutus]

Look at it this way, with any other school subject (math, science, history) we don't leave it up to the parents to be the ones to explain it to their kids. Sure we have homeschooling, but in my state at least it is heavily regulated. We don't just let kids stay at home and trust their parents will teach them correctly. Maybe the parents are too lazy. Maybe they're too embarrassed. Maybe they don't know the subject well enough for them to be teaching it at all anyways. That's why people advocate sex ed in schools.

As to how old a kid should be when they learn sex ed, it isn't about when the parent thinks an appropriate time is that their kid should start thinking about sex. It's about when they need to know the information. If kids are having sex as young as grade school, then that is when they need to learn the information. If we can do anything about society to try and address it from another angle, sure, we can do that too. But we can't just let our kids be ignorant of the real facts because we don't think they're ready to hear them. We should equip them with all the knowledge they're going to need when they're out there in the real world.

Sadly, the real world is a bear.
!

But it's been demonstrated (by international research) that parents don't need to teach their kids sex ed. In the aforementioned nations, parents NEVER discuss sex with their kids. Nor do schools - or didn't until quite recently. Yet the kids don't make anywhere near as many mistakes as ours do. Certainly grade school sex would be rare, and therefore not sufficient reason to compel all students to be educated with that in mind. It'd be like teaching all kids how to steal cars 'safely', because one might.

 

[Locutus]

Ah. That would make sense, then. It most likely comes down to parenting style and the values of a collectivist culture.

It has everything to do with parenting styles, of course. But this is the missing element, not the sex ed. Sex ed is the gaffer tape. But it's not just Asia, or collectivism, or even conservatism. Scandinavian countries have lower rates of teen pregnancy than the US, and they're far more liberal than Americans when it comes to parenting.

 

[Cearbhall]

It'd be like teaching all kids how to steal cars 'safely', because one might.

Except that sex is something they're going to do one day, legally and without a victim, while stealing a car is none of those things. I'd say it's a pretty problematic mindset to lump sex together with grand theft auto.

 

[Locutus]

Sorry but 15 is old enough to get pregnant. If you wait until then to teach your kids about sex, they might just end up teaching you a thing or two about it.

12 is old enough to get pregnant. but 15 is too young to be having sex.

 

[Locutus]

Except that sex is something they're going to do one day, legally and without a victim, while stealing a car is none of those things.

bad analogy, but you get the gist.

 

[Cearbhall]

It has everything to do with parenting styles, of course. But this is the missing element, not the sex ed. Sex ed is the gaffer tape. But it's not just Asia, or collectivism, or even conservatism. Scandinavian countries have lower rates of teen pregnancy than the US, and they're far more liberal than Americans when it comes to parenting.

Right, and there's only so much the U.S. government can do for that. Formal education, on the other hand, is mandated until age 16, so schools can make up for the parenting gap by teaching sex ed.

bad analogy, but you get the gist.

Not really. I don't see the similarity. I would say that teaching them how to have sex safely is comparable to teaching them how to get a loan or how to read food labels when grocery shopping. Just because it's not something they need to know now doesn't mean they shouldn't learn it. Sex is just a part of life.

 

[Locutus]

No it totally makes sense. And I agree that even 15 is too young to be having sex. What we seem to disagree on is just what exactly is sexualizing the kids. You seem to think sex ed will do it, I think it's already been done. By the time I was in 4th grade I already knew all about how to have sex. When you lump a bunch of kids together, K-6 for instance, you're exposing kindergartners to topics that sixth graders talk about. You'd be astonished at just how much young kids know without ever having "the talk" with their parents. And since kids are starting to have sex that young even without sex ed, I don't think educating them is the problem. It's addressing an issue that already exists, and is sadly going to continue to exist, probably forever. Kids are going to learn about it, and be sometimes pressured to do it, so it is better that they are informed than uninformed. And of course the best way to inform them is through proper parenting, but we clearly can't count on that. Since we have plenty of middle-schoolers getting pregnant these days, I can't see a good reason to ignore that till they hit high school.

Of course exposure to sexual material sexualises kids. Just as exposure to alcohol will set up a taste for it. Just because we present it in what we think is a clinical way, doesn't mean that that's how it's received or processed. In fact the more kids are exposed to sex in other arenas, the more that sex ed just starts to look like validation. It's like adding fuel to a runaway fire.

Having said all that, I guess I just don't know enough about America's particular problems, if you have so many grad schoolers getting jiggy etc.

 

[Cearbhall]

Of course exposure to sexual material sexualises kids. Just as exposure to alcohol will set up a taste for it.

You're comparing knowledge of an experience to the actual experience of something.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It'd be like teaching all kids how to steal cars 'safely', because one might.

Except, having sex isn't illegal or wrong.

So, not like stealing cars at all.

 

[Locutus]

Right, and there's only so much the U.S. government can do for that. Formal education, on the other hand, is mandated until age 16, so schools can make up for the parenting gap by teaching sex ed.

Not really. I don't see the similarity. I would say that teaching them how to have sex safely is comparable to teaching them how to get a loan or how to read food labels when grocery shopping. Just because it's not something they need to know now doesn't mean they shouldn't learn it. Sex is just a part of life.

Yes, it's part of life, but in the wrong 'hands' and at the wrong age, it's potentially life destroying - literally and figuratively. It's not grocery shopping or loan getting. And it doesn't just have to potential to ruin the life of the doer - it impacts others, including possible babies.

Meantime, the govt would be better off putting resources into self-esteem and resilience programs. That's the cause of kids falling off the rails, not lack of information on condoms.

 

[Locutus]

Except, having sex isn't illegal or wrong.

So, not like stealing cars at all.

As said, bad analogy. And yet it isn't really that bad - given stealing cars sometimes results in less damage to the individual than the poor self-esteem which leads kids in grade school to sex.

But if you like, we can go with another. How about "because a few kids might become alcoholics, we'll compel all 12 year olds to undertake a responsible drinking program". I've no doubt there are flaws in that one, too, but it's a little closer in terms of the legal loophole.

 

[Locutus]

You're comparing knowledge of an experience to the actual experience of something.

Exposure is stronger indicator of future use/abuse than no exposure. If you get dysfunctional or emotionally unintelligent 13 year olds thinking that sex is super important (and that is the message these programs deliver, intentionally or otherwise), you're more likely to see it acted out than if this message is not sent.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

As said, bad analogy. And yet it isn't really that bad - given stealing cars sometimes results in less damage to the individual than the poor self-esteem which leads kids in grade school to sex.

But if you like, we can go with another. How about "because a few kids might become alcoholics, we'll compel all 12 year olds to undertake a responsible drinking program". I've no doubt there are flaws in that one, too, but it's a little closer in terms of the legal loophole.

When I was in 5th grade (10 years old) we had to go through the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program, or D.A.R.E. and that's exactly what that was. A program to introduce you to the concept of drugs and the inherent dangers and risks both legal and medical, before your stupid friends do.

 

[Locutus]

When I was in 5th grade (10 years old) we had to go through the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program, or D.A.R.E. and that's exactly what that was. A program to introduce you to the concept of drugs and the inherent dangers and risks both legal and medical, before your stupid friends do.

I don't agree with those programs either.

If you set kids up to fail, that's what they'll do. Despite the good intentions behind these programs, they send a clear message of "we expect you to do this (sex, drugs, whatever), so here's some damage control". Why not also have them do compulsory "school drop out, on welfare" preparation courses?

 

[Moral Orel]

But it's been demonstrated (by international research) that parents don't need to teach their kids sex ed.

Again, international research is irrelevant. The differences between the cultures of America and Japan is so staggering, it would be like treating manic depression and aspergers with the same therapy session.
As far as the US goes, research shows that comprehensive sex ed (not abstinence only garbage) significantly cuts down on teenage pregnancy. You can call it "gaffer tape" if you want, but there is no better alternative right now. There is no other program that works better, and having no program at all works very poorly.
So the bottom line is, comprehensive sex ed leads to less teen pregnancies in the US.
No sex ed at all and even abstinence only sex ed leads to more teen pregnancies in the US.
Given the actual mountain of data we have to support sex ed in the US, what should we be doing, really? Nothing till 15?

Of course exposure to sexual material sexualises kids.

Sorry, I didn't explain that well enough. I didn't mean that teaching sex ed wouldn't start kids thinking about sex. I meant they're already thinking about sex by the time we start giving them sex ed. They're already sexualized, so giving them a better understanding of what they're already talking about, thinking about, imagining, etc... Is a good thing.

Having said all that, I guess I just don't know enough about America's particular problems, if you have so many grad schoolers getting jiggy etc.

Are you not American? Sorry, don't mean to sound patronizing or anything, I just assumed you were, but this makes it sound like you aren't. I forget sometimes how many people from outside the US post here, so I just assume most of us are from the US of A.
On a side note, my wife, when she was in the fifth grade, witnessed a classmate performing orally for another classmate under the desk. So believe me, it's out there and it's happening and we have to address it somehow as a society, not just tell parents to do a better job.

Meantime, the govt would be better off putting resources into self-esteem and resilience programs. That's the cause of kids falling off the rails, not lack of information on condoms.

I don't think self-esteem is as much of a problem with it as you might think. Of course it is the problem sometimes, but a lot of the time kids just think it's cool. As a boy I thought about sex a lot as a grade-schooler even, and talked to no end about it with my other male friends. I don't know how different it is for girls, but we weren't all suffering from low self esteem.

If you get dysfunctional or emotionally unintelligent 13 year olds thinking that sex is super important (and that is the message these programs deliver, intentionally or otherwise), you're more likely to see it acted out than if this message is not sent.

"Important"? I don't see it. Important to do it safely if you're going to, maybe. But even comprehensive sex ed warns against having sex by talking about unwanted pregnancies and STDs. They even show pictures most of the time... yech!

Why not also have them do compulsory "school drop out, on welfare" preparation courses?

Because we don't expect kids to do that. That's just like your "stealing a car" analogy. It's normal to have sex sometime in your life, and it's normal to experiment with alcohol and (some) drugs sometime in your life. It's fine if you never do, but it doesn't make you a social deviant to use either (or both) recreationally at times.

 

[Moral Orel]

When I was in 5th grade (10 years old) we had to go through the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program, or D.A.R.E.

I don't agree with those programs either.

DARE was crap. I had to do that too. They had police come into your class and lie to you. Guess what kids do when they find out the "facts" they learned about drugs were false? They go do some drugs.

I had an officer explain to our class that each person is only capable of producing so many endorphins in their life. Marijuana forces the brain to produce them at an accelerated rate, and so by the time you are an adult you are depressed all the time because you are out of endorphins. Hogwash!

 

[Cearbhall]

Yes, it's part of life, but in the wrong 'hands' and at the wrong age, it's potentially life destroying - literally and figuratively.

If they don't know how to do it safely, then it most certainly will be destructive. If they do know how to do it safely, the odds of this go down. I'd rather not go back to the days when it was normal for teenage girls to get pregnant without realizing that they had even taken that risk.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Whenever the topic of teen pregnancy comes up with a Christian, I'm always left wondering how old they think Mary might have been when she was pregnant with Jesus.

 

[Pwnerer]

@LOVEthroughINTELLECT This macro does a good job of imagery to communicate what I think you're describing:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l8kuM81V9FM/R7dJR_9qdzI/AAAAAAAAAcA/BphngglVMEg/s320/Progressives.jpg

 

[Locutus]

Again, international research is irrelevant. The differences between the cultures of America and Japan is so staggering, it would be like treating manic depression and aspergers with the same therapy session.
As far as the US goes, research shows that comprehensive sex ed (not abstinence only garbage) significantly cuts down on teenage pregnancy. You can call it "gaffer tape" if you want, but there is no better alternative right now. There is no other program that works better, and having no program at all works very poorly.
So the bottom line is, comprehensive sex ed leads to less teen pregnancies in the US.
No sex ed at all and even abstinence only sex ed leads to more teen pregnancies in the US.
Given the actual mountain of data we have to support sex ed in the US, what should we be doing, really? Nothing till 15?

Sorry, I didn't explain that well enough. I didn't mean that teaching sex ed wouldn't start kids thinking about sex. I meant they're already thinking about sex by the time we start giving them sex ed. They're already sexualized, so giving them a better understanding of what they're already talking about, thinking about, imagining, etc... Is a good thing.

Are you not American? Sorry, don't mean to sound patronizing or anything, I just assumed you were, but this makes it sound like you aren't. I forget sometimes how many people from outside the US post here, so I just assume most of us are from the US of A.
On a side note, my wife, when she was in the fifth grade, witnessed a classmate performing orally for another classmate under the desk. So believe me, it's out there and it's happening and we have to address it somehow as a society, not just tell parents to do a better job.

I don't think self-esteem is as much of a problem with it as you might think. Of course it is the problem sometimes, but a lot of the time kids just think it's cool. As a boy I thought about sex a lot as a grade-schooler even, and talked to no end about it with my other male friends. I don't know how different it is for girls, but we weren't all suffering from low self esteem.

"Important"? I don't see it. Important to do it safely if you're going to, maybe. But even comprehensive sex ed warns against having sex by talking about unwanted pregnancies and STDs. They even show pictures most of the time... yech!

Because we don't expect kids to do that. That's just like your "stealing a car" analogy. It's normal to have sex sometime in your life, and it's normal to experiment with alcohol and (some) drugs sometime in your life. It's fine if you never do, but it doesn't make you a social deviant to use either (or both) recreationally at times.

Definitely not in America, nor an American. I'm in one of the western secular nations that are so fondly cited by my heathen brethren in these forums

When I say sex ed makes sex seem super important, I don't mean that that's the intention. It's how immature kids will process the message. If adults keep telling them about it with a sense of danger and urgency attached, they won't necessarily process it the way it's intended.

And again, it's not that only a few kids will have sex/steal a car/whatever, it's that few will do it an inappropriately young age. At least where I live it would be quite rare prior to high school (age 13, approx.). Even then, it's not common in the under 15's. Certainly not common enough to warrant compulsory blanket sex ed for 12 year olds. The vast majority of sexual exploration happens from age 15 onwards, across pretty much all societies (not just mine or those Asian groups mentioned earlier). 15 is the logical time to introduce this stuff.