Sex Education to be Compulsory?

[PeterStoba]

Could I be rude and ask how old you are?

Yes, I'm 14. Please do not start the whole "you're a kid what do you know" because it's ridiculous.

I didn't mean our government is useless, although many uneducate blame them for everything, job losse etc...

whenever we British try and implement any kind of mainland european way of doing things, we never get it right and almost always make it worse

That is why I made the statement, that exact reason

Many girls do it because they're naive and think that bringing up a baby is a walk in the park, and getting handouts would make it a magic fix.

Thats the precise reason i said dont offer them as much support, make it hard for them, set some examples and then not every other girl will wanna get pregnant at the age of 13!

[eshrules]

Yes, I'm 14. Please do not start the whole "you're a kid what do you know" because it's ridiculous.

I didn't mean our government is useless, although many uneducate blame them for everything, job losse etc...

I simply asked how old you were, to get a handle on your point of view, I was 14 myself not too long ago, I'm bemused by the defensive stance before I've even said anything.

That is why I made the statement, that exact reason

you seem to be confused as to why you made the statement?....see below

Thats the precise reason i said dont offer them as much support, make it hard for them, set some examples and then not every other girl will wanna get pregnant at the age of 13!

so , are you saying don't educate young children because it's an EU concept and we'll mess it up, OR because the girls will only get pregnant anyway because they're given 'easy benefits' ?

aren't you forgetting the other half of the pregnancy equation? If you're saying not to educate, what are you suggesting, that all benefits for single mothers be withdrawn?

With the right education, contraceptive support and proper guidance, children will begin to learn.

[eshrules]

Apart from religious loons, who is saying its wrong, these days?

I remember my sex education consisting of being made aware of the legal age of consent, how women use a tampon and how a condom should be used. At no point, were we ever allowed to discuss the 'what ifs'. My experience may be an isolated one, but what if it isn't?

[PeterStoba]

I simply asked how old you were, to get a handle on your point of view, I was 14 myself not too long ago, I'm bemused by the defensive stance before I've even said anything.

It's just usually once people know i'm 14 they dis regard my opinions as i'm a child. Sorry if it seemed defensive.

you seem to be confused as to why you made the statement?....see below

I said that about two different things I said, but didn't make it clear. I mean everytime the uk try to adopt some european stuff, it never works, and also that the reason many teenagers have children is for the benefits.

so , are you saying don't educate young children because it's an EU concept and we'll mess it up, OR because the girls will only get pregnant anyway because they're given 'easy benefits' ?

Both of them.

Ofcourse over time the pregnancy numbers will fall, but the lack of sex education in secondary schools, we have like 1 lesson a year and its stuff you already know. They had boxes of condoms, but couldn't give us any because we were under 16, which I found stupid, they're here to stop us having unprotected sex and raise awareness or risks, then they do that?

[staffsMike]

I've always said if/when I eventually have kids, as long as they are mature enough to ask for condoms.. they are mature enough to have sex (obviously within reason but hopefully I won't be breeding chavs).

My parents did the same thing with sex/drugs/smoking/drinking etc.. If they don't ask/ don't use them then any consequences of it are their problem. (That's probably a very idle threat tbh but still they will know that's how we feel )

So I drank when I was 15 at parties etc..(not on street corners) stopped by 19.
Only had one partner.
Never really smoked or done any drugs.

Seems to have worked quite well tbh.

If this gets them to the stage of maturity they need then so be it, hope I don't have to teach it though, I'm sure maths teachers are ill-equipped to deal with such things

[eshrules]

It's just usually once people know i'm 14 they dis regard my opinions as i'm a child. Sorry if it seemed defensive.

age matters to me not one jot, your opinion is as valid as the next, but you can't pull the age sympathy card if someone disagreed with you... just bear that in mind is alls I'll say

Both of them.

Ofcourse over time the pregnancy numbers will fall, but the lack of sex education in secondary schools, we have like 1 lesson a year and its stuff you already know. They had boxes of condoms, but couldn't give us any because we were under 16, which I found stupid, they're here to stop us having unprotected sex and raise awareness or risks, then they do that?

and here we will disagree, removal of benefit support for single mothers, regardless of their circumstances is a short sighted and ignorant viewpoint to take. What about young mothers with OH's in the forces? would you see the wife of someone fighting for our country, struggle? What about (heaven forbid you should ever come into contact with this) rape victims, who have fallen pregnant and chose to keep that child? would you penalise those too?

your point about your school is an interesting one, as most clinics/schools I know of, are allowed to hand out condoms to anyone, regardless of their youth, I can't say this with %100 certainty, but I'm sure your school has made a mistake there.

you also contradict your point, you're saying that education is lacking, surely with lessons more often, with more accurate advice, it would be worth doing?

[Lee H]

I remember my sex education consisting of being made aware of the legal age of consent, how women use a tampon and how a condom should be used. At no point, were we ever allowed to discuss the 'what ifs'. My experience may be an isolated one, but what if it isn't?

We had practically next to nothing as well while I was at school. Maybe it was because it was a catholic school but we had the same sort of advice and no information regarding "what if's".

In fact, most of my education regarding sexual education was provided by my parents as they were very open about things like this and other 'taboo' subjects.

[fuddam]

I have 3 kids. I don't want them being taught about sex education from the age of 5 - that's a load of bollocks.

in itself, sex education is a good thing, BUT it must fit into a larger picture for it to be effective: RELATIONSHIP. It's no use talking about the ins & outs of how sex works, without placing it within a larger discussion of relationships.

the UK has the highest teenage pregnancy precisely because Europe has a greater emphasis on family life than the UK, which is paying the price for the 60's sexual liberation which advocated sexual freedom without responsibility.

sad.

[G4Z]

Is this really the answer to the teenage pregnancy boom & the rise of STI's in young people?

Yes.

I have 3 kids. I don't want them being taught about sex education from the age of 5 - that's a load of bollocks.

in itself, sex education is a good thing, BUT it must fit into a larger picture for it to be effective: RELATIONSHIP. It's no use talking about the ins & outs of how sex works, without placing it within a larger discussion of relationships.

the UK has the highest teenage pregnancy precisely because Europe has a greater emphasis on family life than the UK, which is paying the price for the 60's sexual liberation which advocated sexual freedom without responsibility.

sad.

I don't understand this, you say it's a good thing but that you don't want your kids being tauught about it at 5. Well at the moment we do have sex education, back when I was at school ( about 15 years ago) we had it in year 9 (14 or 15 I think that is) and imo it was far too late. I for one already had most of the information they provided and they really didn't provide enough information. I think it is safe to say that this method has proven to be ineffective especially compared to Europe where they teach it much younger and have lower instances of teenage pregnancy and STD's.

I can't quite see why you would be against a sex education method that has evidence to suggest that it is more effective than what we currently have.

My second point about your quote is to do with you mentioning the 'relationship' aspect, frankly I don't see what that has to do at all with the nuts and bolts about avoiding STD's and pregnancy. I think yes it is worth some discussion in the classroom but I think having sex outside of a relationship is not 'wrong' and its down to the individual. I disagree with trying to teach kids that they should be in a relationship, I think its down to the individual to make that choice.




I think it's better to remove the taboo by teaching it young and giving kids all of the available information. I also think pornography should not have an age limit on it, I find it incredible that you can have sex at 16 (or in practise even younger), die for your country at 17 but you can't watch 2 people getting it on until you're 18. I suppose since I was that age we have had an internet revolution that makes the point moot but I thought I would throw that opinion in anyway.

[mediaboy]

age matters to me not one jot, your opinion is as valid as the next, but you can't pull the age sympathy card if someone disagreed with you... just bear that in mind is alls I'll say

He does have a point though... it's remarkable how many people look at teenagers and think 'they're teenagers, they don't matter one bit' and forget that some of us are actually intelligent. I'm 15, before you ask, and the 'age sympathy' card is something I don't use. I shouldn't need to

removal of benefit support for single mothers, regardless of their circumstances is a short sighted and ignorant viewpoint to take.

Not entirely. It does have some merits, but I have to agree with the sentiment. Just saying 'removal of all benefit support for single mothers' isn't something that I'd say, but I would advocat the removal of the vast majority of it, and making it a non-government issue. See below.

What about young mothers with OH's in the forces?

I'm presuming OH=Other Half? Or is it something I'm unaware of?

would you see the wife of someone fighting for our country, struggle?

Different situation.. they aren't SINGLE mothers... they have husbands
Otherwise they wouldn't be wives....

What about (heaven forbid you should ever come into contact with this) rape victims, who have fallen pregnant and chose to keep that child? would you penalise those too?

The important word in that sentence is 'chose'. It's a CHOICE! Yes, I know that there may be religous reasoning behind it, but why should the government - a secular government at that - support people who make choices based on nonsecular beliefs? It may sound harsh, but religion and government shouldn't be mixed.

I don't think the correct word is penalising. I think we're currently rewarding them FOR choosing the child and be a single mother. How can you penalise someone of a reward? Surely it's just giving them what they deserve?

your point about your school is an interesting one, as most clinics/schools I know of, are allowed to hand out condoms to anyone, regardless of their youth, I can't say this with %100 certainty, but I'm sure your school has made a mistake there.

Yes, the school has. Connections will hand out condoms to anyone, at any age, as should anyone. Afterall, they're supposed to be supporting sexual safety, not saying 'um yeah, just do it without the condoms because we're not allowed to give you them.'

you also contradict your point, you're saying that education is lacking, surely with lessons more often, with more accurate advice, it would be worth doing?

Education, as a whole, is mucked up in this country. I'm in the middle of it, and I honestly think that if I didn't bother turning up for school, taught myself everything on the syllabus and only went back into a school to do the exams, I could probably haze through the next 3 or 4 years of examinations in about 2. However, that was a general statement, not specific.

Sex education in school gives me the impression that they are saying "Go away and do it, as long as you do it safe." At age 11/12, year 7 in this country. I'm fairly sure that saying to a bunch of teenagers that 'as long as they're staying safe it's fine' will only encourage them to go away and have pubescent sex at some ridiculously young age.

Of course, schools deny that this is the impression that they're giving, and maybe they're not trying to give out that impression. But the point remains that it's the sort of impression you GET. Prehaps this is due to adults believing that the kids already know it, and are doing it, and therefore it's a little stupid to tell us not to do it.

Agreeing with the person that said this earlier, I wouldn't trust the government to implement a new policy such as this, even if it was based on what was happening in European mainland. Just a brief question, to confirm/deny a rumour - What's age of consent in Holland?

I have 3 kids. I don't want them being taught about sex education from the age of 5 - that's a load of bollocks.

Agreed. 5 is too young, but I think that 11 is too late. The question is... when do you start teaching kids about things like this? If 11 is too old, 5 is too young, do you do it at 6? 7? maybe even 8 or 9? Personally, I think it's down to the maturity of the child in question. Until they are going to take it seriously - and not use it as a way to insult everyone else - there's no point in teaching them it.

And, unforntunately, that point of maturity is an awful lot later than it would be in a proper world. The fact that I knew about this sort of stuff at about 7 or 8, because I got bored and read through all my older sister's schoolbooks/textbooks/etc. (yes.. I was a sad person like that ) and discovered all sorts of wonderful things is besides the point. I didn't go into it in any detail, but I was certinaly aware of it.

Maybe that was the reason why I was an awful lot maturer about it later on in my life.

in itself, sex education is a good thing, BUT it must fit into a larger picture for it to be effective: RELATIONSHIP. It's no use talking about the ins & outs of how sex works, without placing it within a larger discussion of relationships.

The problem comes, once again, with the maturity of the teenage world. How many teenager will hear the word 'sex' and 'relationship' in the same sentence and immediately not start thinking of a relationship where sex happens every other day and so on and so on? Yes, it needs to be placed into the larger picture, but teenagers can't SEE the larger picture. They are too busy being amused at the idea of sex, or whatever else happened that day.

the UK has the highest teenage pregnancy precisely because Europe has a greater emphasis on family life than the UK, which is paying the price for the 60's sexual liberation which advocated sexual freedom without responsibility.

Don't know about the 60's.. wasn't there at the time, and I'm sure putting 'sexual freedom 60s' into google will come up with all sorts of.... interesting... things. However, I would say that you cannot just blame our exceedingly high teenage pregnancy rate on one factor. It is a combination of factors, with many people doing it for different reasons.

Why would something that happened 40 years ago - about 2 generations, as apparently one generation is about 20 or 30 years - play a large effect on how we act today? I'm fairly sure that my teachers aren't exactly those that were around in the 60s, as most of them are in their late 30s, and maybe their early 40s... not their 50s and 60s (excepting a few, who I would hate to imagine in the "60's sexual liberation.") Please enlighten me.

sad.

Yep.

We had practically next to nothing as well while I was at school. Maybe it was because it was a catholic school but we had the same sort of advice and no information regarding "what if's".

Not just catholic schooling.. all schooling I'm afraid. Although you do now touch on the "what if's", but it's not in any detail and more time is spent on advice than anything else. Prevention rather than curing. It has it's benefits, but who pays attention to it? Hardly anyone in my opinion.

In fact, most of my education regarding sexual education was provided by my parents as they were very open about things like this and other 'taboo' subjects.

What good parents you had!

[mediaboy]

I think it's better to remove the taboo by teaching it young and giving kids all of the available information. I also think pornography should not have an age limit on it, I find it incredible that you can have sex at 16 (or in practise even younger), die for your country at 17 but you can't watch 2 people getting it on until you're 18. I suppose since I was that age we have had an internet revolution that makes the point moot but I thought I would throw that opinion in anyway.

Proving the point about stupid government laws.

Bit like the old smoking one.. you could smoke at 16, but couldn't get the stuff to help kick the addiciton till 18. Believe that has now been changed though, but someone please confirm?

[Lee H]

Just to add fuel to the fire, what about those poor young girls who are about 7-8 years old and are starting puberty early?

Surely they have a right to know the changes that are going on within their body at that time and how it affects them and WHY they are starting to develop bumps and bleed from various places?

Surely having sex education at this time will help them understand these changes?

[mediaboy]

So are you suggesting that we limit sex education to those that have hit puberty? That could end up with mismatched classes on sex education with people of all ages, and a generally older population of boys.

I do apologise if I misunderstood though... I need to go and get some lunch, but people keep on posting on things and distracting me

[TheAnimus]

The government support all mothers, fathers etc. Should they just withdraw support for those under 20 and leave them to fend for themselves?

Quite the oppersite.

Supporting someone who has had kids at 15, is more than just giving them money and a roof over their heads. Hardly support that is it?

Be much better to provide them with a almost hostal style environment, with people of similar situations can be brought together, have trained or experianced parental helpers on site, as dear old Jamie has been showing most people don't even know how to cook (thou i think that might just be the north). How are you going to bring up children?

Its important to note that this would involve giving them pratically no money to choose how to spend themselfs.

[mediaboy]

....Its important to note that this would involve giving them pratically no money to choose how to spend themselfs.

That sounds like a sensible idea. However, I get the feeling that you'd get the shouts of "I don't want to be split up from my parents" and "I want privacy" and whatever other reason they can think up so that they get the free house/free money.

It works in principal, in practicality I can see other legislation getting in the way.

[Moby-Dick]

Isn't that pretty much a revival of the Workhouse / Poorhouse concept ?