It hasn't helped in New York where for 30 years it's been implemented
in grade school. To the extent correlation means anything we now have bigger
problems with abortion and single mothers and welfare than ever before. My point
is that while I don't think sex-education necessarily caused this, it
certainly hasn't helped and has arguably put ideas into some
children's heads that would not otherwise have been there at those early
ages. Spending money on academics is far more effective than spending money on
parenting, besides this sort of moral education is better taught in the home
where the responsibility lies to begin with.
Why is every saying we need to teach sex education at a lower age they are
receiving sex education. We have Television, Movies from Hollywood, magazines
and parents that just allow their children to watch anything. You could start
teaching at the age of 8 and our nation will destroy our morals faster than a
hurricane in Florida Wake up America. Trenton
What's went with professional educators teaching their children sex
education? Why do we want incompetent, poorly informed, and emotional parents
involved? Children will be less embarrassed and better educated if
they're taught by professionals. Not by people who they see every day and
might create an awkward situation to their honest questions.
It is a good idea. Pity the article does not set forth a methodology. One of the better ways of introducing sex education (by parents) is set
forth by Richard and Lina Eyre in a book title "How to Talk to Your Children
about Sex." Google it or check Amazon. They suggest starting at age eight.
They suggest some basic books that may be used adjuncts to explain human
sexuality in an age appropriate fashion. They find that if parents do so at
that age, that children are very teachable and have (in many instances) not
learned much about it on the playground or otherwise.We've used
their approach to good effect. Some parents may decide to wait a year or two
before explaining how it works. But it is wise to do it early.
@DN Subscriber: "The pregnancy problem can be solved if we teach instead:- Unwed parenthood is morally wrong- Sex outside of marriage is
wrong"That would certainly result in a higher rate of teenaged
pregnancies. Studies have shown that states with "abstinence-only" sex
education have higher teenage pregnancy rates than those that emphasize
contraception.Oh, and a bonus: sex education which emphasizes
contraception also leads to lower abortion rates. So if you're opposed to
abortion, education and contraception is the way to go.
@ DNSubscriber: I find it interesting that you start by claiming it is a moral
issue and then end with an example of a real world consequence that has
absolutely no moral ties. Over the past many, many years we, as a
society, have found that basing sex prohibitions on strictly moral reasoning has
a very low efficacy rate. Following the guidelines in this article, including
using real life facts like your example of paying child support for 18 years,
has a much higher efficacy rate.
@A Guy With A BrainEnid, OK"And it should be done by
PARENTS!"Why? Too many parents are ill-suited to teach it
because they're either embarrassed, or because they have little idea of how
much to teach at a given age. We have no problem with kids learning about every
other aspect of how their bodies work and how to take care of them in school.
What makes the genitals so different? If it's left to the parents, there
will be significant numbers of kids who don't learn a thing beyond what
they hear from other kids.
We have a moral problem which has destroyed values, not an ignorance of what
causes babies.Kids don't need "sex education" about
birds and bees, bananas and human plumbing.The pregnancy problem can
be solved if we teach instead:- Unwed parenthood is morally wrong-
Sex outside of marriage is wrong- Don't have kids until you can
afford to raise them (and eliminate the welfare incentives which contradict
this.)- Children should be raised in a two parent home, not by unwed
mothers. (Same sex or hetero is an issue for a different day)As an
example, a father should ensure that their male children understand there will
be dire consequences if they impregnate a girl. Especially an 18 year
commitment for child support and visitation.
I wonder if Gayle gave the DN permission to print this article.
Article title: "Sex education should start sooner, study finds"True.And it should be done by PARENTS!
Lets see what Gayle Rucizika has to say about this before we do anything foolish
We've started earlier than 10, why let incorrect notions heard on the
playground or school bus bias such an important topic? If handled correctly
talking about sex with children will show them it's ok to talk about in the
right places and that parents can be trusted to share sensitive information with
them rather than react in a huff if a child shows any knowledge of it.
Agreed.Parents? Get with it!
The study found that children develop awareness of sexually differentiated roles
and expectations in society between the ages of 10 - 12. The study concluded
that this could have implications on the best time to begin sex education, but
did not provide any data on the actual outcomes of initiating that education at
those ages.Without that further information, we are no further along
in determining the best time to introduce sex education.