Comments about ‘Sex education should start sooner, study finds’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Aug. 1 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Houston, TX

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.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT


Parents? Get with it!

Johnny Triumph
American Fork, UT

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.

salt lake city, UT

Lets see what Gayle Rucizika has to say about this before we do anything foolish like education.

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

Article title: "Sex education should start sooner, study finds"


And it should be done by PARENTS!

Here, UT

I wonder if Gayle gave the DN permission to print this article.

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Pleasant Grove, UT

@A Guy With A Brain
Enid, 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.


@ 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.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@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.

terra nova
Park City, UT

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.

Provo, UT

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.

Bakersfield, CA

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

Niskayuna, NY

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments