Christian and Christian's views on Sex Education

El_Duderino 09

Hello Christianity forum,

I am interested in finding out about your views on sex education in schools. I think it's fair to say Christians would traditionally have wanted to minimise discussion of sex and reproduction as a means to reduce the likelihood of fornication and its associated activities such as earlier engagement in sexual intercourse, greater overall number of sexual partners, children born out of marriage.

Research suggests that school based sex education leads to positive change in each of the outcomes mentioned above.
Later first intercourse, lower number of sexual partners overall, lower STIs, Lower instances of non-volitional sex, lower unplanned pregnancy and abortion rates.

I was hoping to understand whether the various Christian denominations are opposed to discussion of sex or were they more interested in reducing the outcomes mentioned above? If greater sex education led to the outcomes mentioned above, would you support comprehensive sex education which treats sex as a matter of; Health, Reproduction and Initimacy, for instance?

I Was listening to a BBC Radio 4 Health podcast which discussed 2 journal articles in the British Medical Journal free edition this month Here and Here


So Im wondering what the Christian religions say and what the individual Christians here think about what the goals are and how to achieve them.

Thanks
El D

Manach

I'd not have a Christian view on such. My viewpoint is actually informed by writers, now I think of it happen to Atheist or Jewish, but who place such education in the wider social changes, the growth of Governance and long term effects of such on societal norms over generations (say since the 60s) who would tend to be skeptic of the benefits of such. Co-religous such as Terry Eagleton who come from a different political tradition might however agree with OP.

El_Duderino 09

Manach wrote: »

I'd not have a Christian view on such. My viewpoint is actually informed by writers, now I think of it happen to Atheist or Jewish, but who place such education in the wider social changes, the growth of Governance and long term effects of such on societal norms over generations (say since the 60s) who would tend to be skeptic of the benefits of such. Co-religous such as Terry Eagleton who come from a different political tradition might however agree with OP.

Hey Manach

I'm not sure if you got where I'm coming from with the OP.

I Google Terry Eagleton to see what he's about and he turned out to be a radical thinker back in his day before this line of research had started. My point was that you don't need to be a radical thinker now because the research helps us understand the effect of comprehensive sex education and it's absence.

That was the point of referencing the 2 journal articles. We know that more accurate information children have and the more freely they can discuss sex with adults leads to a load of outcomes which I would have thought would be in line with Christian teaching or Christian practices.

Later age of first sex,
lower number of sexual partners,
lower teen and unplanned pregnancy,
lower abortion rates,
lower instances of unconsentual sex/coercive sex
And greater likelihood of refusing an offer of sex as a teen if they know what sex is.

The obvious exception which I forgot to mention in the OP is contraception use which also increases with education.


I'm asking whether the religions themselves oppose sex education or are they more concerned about the outcomes?

Would you support sex education which has all the effects mentioned above?

MrPudding

Clearly I am not a christian, but hopefully you won't mind me trying to contribute...

I think some religious people may have the perception that sex education does not have the positive effect you mention, but in fact does the opposite. One only need to look at the various stories of the objections raised by various religious groups to sex education.

I think the difficult part will be convincing these people that there are positive effects, like those you mentioned. Some might say, 'well yes, if that was the case I would agree with it' but then refuse to accept the evidence. We can see this type of attitude in other areas where religious view clash with societal change or improvements.

A good example is the teen pregnancy rate in the states. It has been shown for years that areas than ban any useful sex education and teach abstinence only have higher rates of teen/unwanted/accidental pregnancy. It is quite clear that abstinence only does not work, yet the proponent of it continue to fight against changes and more and more states are trying to implement it.

I tick your question is a very interesting one, but it seems that in this area, no uncommonly with the religious, evidence does not seem to play much of a part in the decision making process.

MrP

Cen taurus

Of course its a good thing.

There seems to be a constant desperation and need to stereotype all Christians.

El_Duderino 09

Cen taurus wrote: »

Of course its a good thing.

There seems to be a constant desperation and need to stereotype all Christians.

Thanks for replying.

You said it's a good thing so could you elaborate on 'it'? I presume you're speaking for yourself to avoid stereotyping Christians.

Is your view consistent with your church's teaching?

Cen taurus

Given that the posts are already begging the question why would I waste my time doing that ?

Benny_Cake

I'm an attender at a Quaker meeting, and Quakers would generally leave it up to the individual to form their own conscience on matters such as sex education, although certainly many Friends were at the forefront of campaigns in support of sex education as far back as the 1920s. So I'd certainly be unqualified to speak for the denomination as a whole, but my own views would be informed by my faith.

I believe sex education is not only a good think, it's a necessity. That said, I'd hope it's of a higher standard now than the sex education we received when I was in 6th class back in 1991 - two classes, one by a nurse, one by a priest. Both were awful, though perhaps surprisingly the priest was slightly less awful than the nurse! I'd definitely be of the view that education on the physical aspects of sex as well as contraception and STIs should be integrated with attempting to reinforce the importance of respect for others, as well as self respect and self esteem. I suspect that risky sexual behavior often results from either a lack of good information or a low sense of self worth.

I'd question whether many Christians, in this country at least, are outright opposed to sex education. The content might be debated, but the need for it surely can't be, particuarly with whats available online. Didn't have that in my day!

Also worth noting that teenage pregnancy figures has been in decline in recent years, and there seems to be a correlation with improved sex education:

http://www.crisispregnancy.ie/news/consistent-decline-births-teenagers-ireland-decade-hse-welcomes-reduction-number-births-teenagers-2013-ongoing-reduction-births-teenagers/

JimiTime

At an appropriate age, with appropriate content I think it can be a good thing.

Nick Park

If done well, then I'm all for it. If children don't get decent sex education in the classroom then they learn it badly in sniggering conversations behind the bicycle sheds (that's if schools still have bicycle sheds these days).

_Brian

Perhaps some schools don't have it but our kids attend a rural Christian denomination school.

In senior infants they have the "stay safe" programme where kids are taught the language around how to talk about any issues regarding inappropriate touching etched from others.

In 6th class they get decent sex education information.

All age appropriate.

El_Duderino 09

Thanks for the replies.

So most posters are fairly positive about sex education in principal even if there is room for negotiation on what exactly is taught.

So far nobody has said;
discussion of sex and reproduction is opposed by their denomination or
that the research is flawed and in reality more education leads to more promiscuity.

I'll admit being pleasantly surprised. The future looks bright

Cen taurus

That's prejudice for you.

El_Duderino 09

Cen taurus wrote: »

That's prejudice for you.

Yep I'm exposing my prejudice to the harsh light of evidence. The worst thing that can happen is that I have to change my opinion. I'm prepared for that.

Would you like to engage in the discussion at some point?

Feel free to continue to snipe from the sideline if that's what you prefer. I just want to know how to weight your contribution.

Avoidance of discussion is interesting in itself.

Cen taurus

So after landing in and begging the question you admit your predjudice, that's something I suppose.

El_Duderino 09

Cen taurus wrote: »

More of the same again . . . you arrive in begging the question and then demand I discuss it with you ? lol

Believe it or not your posts are informative.

The replies have been courteous (with exception of your own) and informative. I'm assuming your posts are informative in spite of your intentions.

I'm inviting you to contribute like the other posters. Do as you wish though. Please understand that I'm not compelling you to reply. It's up to you

El_Duderino 09

Cen taurus wrote: »

So after landing in and begging the question you admit your predjudice, that's something I suppose.

Readily. I'll admit to all kinds of ignorance. I'm unafraid of new information. I'm here looking for new information from like minded posters.

While you're being informative I'm not enjoying the combative nature of our discussion. I'm more interested in constructive dialogue. So we should probably leave it here. Feel free to have the last word and ill thank you for your contribution.

eviltwin

I'm not religious but my husband is Christian and he is all for sex education. I'm a big believer in knowledge as power so its always been a very open house with our kids. Growing up sex was a dirty word and we were all a bit clueless but thankfully parents today are a bit more open minded about it.

The schools are still stuck in the past. My daughter goes to a Catholic secondary school, she's in 6th year. The extent of her sex education was a talk by Pure in Heart last year. They have had no formal sexual education apart from this and one talk in 3rd year where they talked about the mechanics of how pregnancy happens, nothing about feelings or consent or std's, contraception or anything like that which is pretty shoddy.

El_Duderino 09

Thanks eviltwin.

Is your husbands support for sex education consistent with his interpretation of his religious belief?

eviltwin

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Thanks eviltwin.

Is your husbands support for sex education consistent with his interpretation of his religious belief?

Well he's more of a cultural Catholic than anything else although he still defers to the Pope for his guidance on moral issues :rolleyes: major bugbear in our house ...anyway he is not in favour of casual sex but more from a social point of view than a religious one. He doesn't think teenagers should be having sex at all, he doesn't believe people should have one night stands etc but he knows its going to happen and that people need to know how to protect themselves. Just to add he is a total hypocrite because we were living in sin years and had kids out of wedlock and all that.

Cen taurus

Does he know you're on here writing that about him ?

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Hi El Duderino

Allow me to weigh in from a different perspective. I would consider myself a Catholic and therefore bound by any Papal pronouncements, whether they make my life more difficult or not. I simply defer to the wiser judgement of the Pontiff as, to my understanding, Catholics are supposed to do. Therefore I am bound by Paul VI's Humanae Vitae (ban on artificial contraception) and John Paul II Theology of the Body (ban on fornication ect). I understand where the Popes are coming from and I fully agree with them.

Problem with sex ed: It is a Social Marxist's wet dream. Instead of being taught to abstain and wait for marriage and so not to use contraception ect kids are brainwashed into thinking its ok to follow your instincts like an animal. In my opinion this is only the beginning, the next step being the introduction of the destructive Gender ideology (the BS about your gender being a social construct). For thousands of years no sex ed in schools was needed. Since it appeared, all we have seen is an explosion of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, AIDS and general deviance of all sorts. Looking back on my school years I really wish someone gave me a good grounding in Catholic teaching on the issue, of course I was too young and stupid to realize it then.

El_Duderino 09

Thanks CB.

Do you see sex education as responsible for increasing fornication? Would you see the research conclusions as being wrong or would you see it as correct but the outcomes are not worth pursuing?

Would it be fair to summarise by saying you oppose increasing sex education because it's consistent with your denomination's teaching?

JimiTime

BTW, I think its important to point out, that my parents were the main protagonists of my sex education and I believe that thats how it should be ideally. The school system IMO, is there for those children who have parents who for one reason or another, don't want to broach the subject (Nobody wants to see Carrie type incidents). I was unfortunately exposed to the whispers in school from a very, very young age thanks to fellow pupils older brothers etc.

The biggest issue for me in terms of sex-ed, is the moral aspects, not the facts aspects. I have to say, I thought my Catholic school (I'm not a catholic) done it very well. They taught all the facts, including contraception, but also taught the catholic view on what was and wasn't right in terms of sex. This meant that the catholic kids knew what was expected in terms of their sexual behaviour, but those of us that were not Catholic, could get our moral views from elsewhere. In my case, my Christian faith and parents. Obviously, in my case, there was agreement on many of the moral issues with catholicism, but in matters of, for example contraception, I differed in certain areas.

Nick Park

I think this thread is a good and interesting discussion that needs to be had. It's a shame that some, from both sides of the fence, seem intent on turning it into a quarrel.

katydid

Isabel Low Urination wrote: »

Hi El Duderino

Allow me to weigh in from a different perspective. I would consider myself a Catholic and therefore bound by any Papal pronouncements, whether they make my life more difficult or not. I simply defer to the wiser judgement of the Pontiff as, to my understanding, Catholics are supposed to do. .

Why do you unquestioningly accept the judgement of a pontiff, when history shows us that the judgement of pontiffs can be seriously flawed, if not downright harmful. Look at John Paul II, who promoted and rewarded a serial child abuser. Paul mightn't have had as bad judgement as JPII, but you can't just accept someone's judgement because of the role they have in the church. Surely you must look at it with an open mind.

Delirium

katydid wrote: »

Why do you unquestioningly accept the judgement of a pontiff, when history shows us that the judgement of pontiffs can be seriously flawed, if not downright harmful. Look at John Paul II, who promoted and rewarded a serial child abuser. Paul mightn't have had as bad judgement as JPII, but you can't just accept someone's judgement because of the role they have in the church. Surely you must look at it with an open mind.

The topic of the thread is Christian views on sex education.

It's not about Roman Catholics and their relationship with the Pope. Nor do Roman Catholics have to explain why they choose to accept the Pope as someone who instructs them on how best to have sexual relationships in accordance to their faith.

Thanks for your attention.

katydid

SW wrote: »

The topic of the thread is Christian views on sex education.

It's not about Roman Catholics and their relationship with the Pope. Nor do Roman Catholics have to explain why they choose to accept the Pope as someone who instructs them on how best to have sexual relationships in accordance to their faith.

Thanks for your attention.

Is it not relevant that someone says that they take the view of sex that they do is based on the judgement of the leader of their denomination, when it has been proven that this judgement can be flawed? How can that not be relevant?

I'm curious why you haven't taken this poster to task for expressing this opinion while you take me to task for questioning it. Not trying to be confrontational here, just genuinely curious as to why certain opinions can be expressed and not others...

Mrs OBumble

Isabel Low Urination wrote: »

I would consider myself a Catholic and therefore bound by any Papal pronouncements, whether they make my life more difficult or not. I simply defer to the wiser judgement of the Pontiff as, to my understanding, Catholics are supposed to do. Therefore I am bound by Paul VI's Humanae Vitae (ban on artificial contraception) and John Paul II Theology of the Body (ban on fornication ect). I understand where the Popes are coming from and I fully agree with them.

I also would consider myself a Catholic, but one who has some understanding of the limitations of papal infalliability (which even Benedict admitted occurs only in very rare situations - ref http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-has-no-easy-recipe-for-church-crisis).

I consider that HV and TOB have information that I need to consider in forming my conscience. But the former, in particular, has some serious issues no the least of which is that the eventual contents is based mainly on a personal opinion rather than the collegial study of many theologians and others who worked on it.

So of course I support sex education: without it, and accompanying moral / values education, each individual has no meaningful change of forming their own conscience.

Blind obedience to official pronouncements was a useful strategy when the majority of people were illiterate and uneducated. It's pretty usless now that situation has changed, and since the moral decisions that people have to make have grown vastly more complicated.

Delirium

katydid wrote: »

Is it not relevant that someone says that they take the view of sex that they do is based on the judgement of the leader of their denomination, when it has been proven that this judgement can be flawed? How can that not be relevant?

I'm curious why you haven't taken this poster to task for expressing this opinion while you take me to task for questioning it. Not trying to be confrontational here, just genuinely curious as to why certain opinions can be expressed and not others...

The topic is about Christians and their opinions on sex education in school.

Discussing how a pope (or popes) have made mistakes in judgement is not the topic of the thread.

In addition, it is a site-wide rule not to challenge a mod instruction on-thread. If you have a question, the correct course of action is to PM the mod.

Please bear this in mind in any future posting in this thread.

Thanks for your attention.

katydid

SW wrote: »

The topic is about Christians and their opinions on sex education in school.

Discussing how a pope (or popes) have made mistakes in judgement is not the topic of the thread.

In addition, it is a site-wide rule not to challenge a mod instruction on-thread. If you have a question, the correct course of action is to PM the mod.

Please bear this in mind in any future posting in this thread.

Thanks for your attention.

Ok. Still baffled, though.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I also would consider myself a Catholic, but one who has some understanding of the limitations of papal infalliability (which even Benedict admitted occurs only in very rare situations - ref http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-has-no-easy-recipe-for-church-crisis).

I consider that HV and TOB have information that I need to consider in forming my conscience. But the former, in particular, has some serious issues no the least of which is that the eventual contents is based mainly on a personal opinion rather than the collegial study of many theologians and others who worked on it.

So of course I support sex education: without it, and accompanying moral / values education, each individual has no meaningful change of forming their own conscience.

Blind obedience to official pronouncements was a useful strategy when the majority of people were illiterate and uneducated. It's pretty usless now that situation has changed, and since the moral decisions that people have to make have grown vastly more complicated.

I just accept with humility that the Pope might just be a little wiser than me that is all. Instead of trying to poke holes in his arguments with my flawed layman reasoning I try to understand the message he is attempting to convey. I then apply said message to the world around me, including questions such as the validity of sex ed in schools. I think people are forgetting that obedience is an important Christian virtue.

katydid

Isabel Low Urination wrote: »

I just accept with humility that the Pope might just be a little wiser than me that is all. Instead of trying to poke holes in his arguments with my flawed layman reasoning I try to understand the message he is attempting to convey. I then apply said message to the world around me, including questions such as the validity of sex ed in schools. I think people are forgetting that obedience is an important Christian virtue.

Maybe you need to be a little more critical...

Mrs OBumble

Isabel Low Urination wrote: »

I think people are forgetting that obedience is an important Christian virtue.

I could be mean and point out how well obedience to the church served the Irish people, and in particular Irish children, since the formation of the state. But that's off topic, so let's not go there.


Instead, perhaps you could tell us what the pope / church actually says about sex-education in school.

So far, all you've posted about is the church's views about sex itself, adn your prejudices about what messages sex education typically incldues.

But sex-education, done properly, doesn't focus on any one choice and does include a very large dose of values and self-esteem. (Which typical children find incredibly boring topics, and many don't even realise that they're related to sex!)

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Well as I said there was no sex ed in schools for the last thousands of years (am I right in saying its a phenomenon of the last 20 years or so?). People still knew how to procreate, I hope I do not need me to submit any evidence or quotes for this proposition.

As a Catholic my problem with sexual education is that it teaches contraception is ok (it is NOT according to the Catholic Church), fornication is ok as long as it is "safe" (it is NOT according to the Catholic church), having sexual relations with people of your own gender is ok (it is NOT according to the Catholic Church). You will find the relevant quotes for this in the Catechism, which basically a list of reasoned do's and dont's.

This is in a nutshell how sex ed is currently taught in Irish schools. I cannot imagine how one could call themselves a Catholic and support this crap. I also cannot imagine how helping a 10 year old put condoms on a banana would not be pretty damn weird.

katydid

Isabel Low Urination wrote: »

Well as I said there was no sex ed in schools for the last thousands of years (am I right in saying its a phenomenon of the last 20 years or so?). People still knew how to procreate, I hope I do not need me to submit any evidence or quotes for this proposition.

As a Catholic my problem with sexual education is that it teaches contraception is ok (it is NOT according to the Catholic Church), fornication is ok as long as it is "safe" (it is NOT according to the Catholic church), having sexual relations with people of your own gender is ok (it is NOT according to the Catholic Church). You will find the relevant quotes for this in the Catechism, which basically a list of reasoned do's and dont's.

This is in a nutshell how sex ed is currently taught in Irish schools. I cannot imagine how one could call themselves a Catholic and support this crap. I also cannot imagine how helping a 10 year old put condoms on a banana would not be pretty damn weird.

The thing is that these things are being taught to young people of all religions and none. Not just to Roman Catholics.

True, the Roman Catholic church has, unfortunately for us non RC's, control over the education of the majority of our young people, but you can't build a curriculum around the demands of a religious denomination. Roman Catholics are free to withdraw their children from sex education if they have a problem with it.

marienbad

Isabel Low Urination wrote: »

Well as I said there was no sex ed in schools for the last thousands of years (am I right in saying its a phenomenon of the last 20 years or so?). People still knew how to procreate, I hope I do not need me to submit any evidence or quotes for this proposition.

As a Catholic my problem with sexual education is that it teaches contraception is ok (it is NOT according to the Catholic Church), fornication is ok as long as it is "safe" (it is NOT according to the Catholic church), having sexual relations with people of your own gender is ok (it is NOT according to the Catholic Church). You will find the relevant quotes for this in the Catechism, which basically a list of reasoned do's and dont's.

This is in a nutshell how sex ed is currently taught in Irish schools. I cannot imagine how one could call themselves a Catholic and support this crap. I also cannot imagine how helping a 10 year old put condoms on a banana would not be pretty damn weird.

I think you could do with a few sex education classes

El_Duderino 09

Isabel Low Urination wrote: »

Well as I said there was no sex ed in schools for the last thousands of years (am I right in saying its a phenomenon of the last 20 years or so?). People still knew how to procreate, I hope I do not need me to submit any evidence or quotes for this proposition.

As a Catholic my problem with sexual education is that it teaches contraception is ok (it is NOT according to the Catholic Church), fornication is ok as long as it is "safe" (it is NOT according to the Catholic church), having sexual relations with people of your own gender is ok (it is NOT according to the Catholic Church). You will find the relevant quotes for this in the Catechism, which basically a list of reasoned do's and dont's.

This is in a nutshell how sex ed is currently taught in Irish schools. I cannot imagine how one could call themselves a Catholic and support this crap. I also cannot imagine how helping a 10 year old put condoms on a banana would not be pretty damn weird.

That's an odd point to take an interest in evidence. The evidence suggests that the more information children are given, the later they lose their virginity, the more likely they are to choose not to have sex and results in lower numbers of sexual partners. In other words, more info = less fornication (with exception of contraception use which increases rapidly with education).

Would you say the research is flawed or that the research is correct but you couldn't support sex education because it increases contraception use as well as reducing fornication?

eviltwin

Isabel Low Urination wrote: »

Well as I said there was no sex ed in schools for the last thousands of years (am I right in saying its a phenomenon of the last 20 years or so?). People still knew how to procreate, I hope I do not need me to submit any evidence or quotes for this proposition.

As a Catholic my problem with sexual education is that it teaches contraception is ok (it is NOT according to the Catholic Church), fornication is ok as long as it is "safe" (it is NOT according to the Catholic church), having sexual relations with people of your own gender is ok (it is NOT according to the Catholic Church). You will find the relevant quotes for this in the Catechism, which basically a list of reasoned do's and dont's.

This is in a nutshell how sex ed is currently taught in Irish schools. I cannot imagine how one could call themselves a Catholic and support this crap. I also cannot imagine how helping a 10 year old put condoms on a banana would not be pretty damn weird.

First of all sex ed classes here don't involve teaching children how to put condoms on bananas although imo they should.

Sex ed here is wide and varied. There is the open discussion of everything from contraception to gay relationships in some schools. In others things are a bit more simplistic with just a biology lesson on how babies are made. I understand as a Catholic you probably think children should be told not to have sex and that education on how to prevent pregnancy is wrong but our schools have a duty of care to their pupils to educate where parents fail. It's unfortunate some schools still fall short of this, yet another reason to remove religious influences from schools.

Regardless of the school, as a parent you should be covering this at home. What do you think a Catholic sexual education should consist of?

TheLurker

@Carlowbruiser


I think what you mean when you say it teaches that it is ok is that it doesn't explicitly state it is wrong.

And why would it? It is not the states role to teach a particular religions moral framework.

Education should be about facts and information. What you do with that is up to you.

You can have access to all the rules of the road and then decide as a Muslim woman you shouldn't drive.

You can learn about all the facts on food safety and meat preparation and then decide meat industry is immoral and you want to be a vegetarian.

You can learn all about the Chicago school of economics and then decide that trickle down economics is nonsense and immoral way to treat the poor.

These are personal decisions.

The teacher isn't going to force you to have sex. They will tell you everything there is to know about sex and you can decide if you want to have it or not.

The old fashioned idea that telling children about the facts of sex makes them want to have it has been completely debunked

The opposite is in fact true, the more factual information children have about sex from sex education classes, and the more access the have to birth control, the less sex they have and they haven sex later in life.

The more normalised and "boring" sex becomes through open discussion the less titalizing it appears and the less being a virgin is associated with shameful immaturity that kids feel pressured to grow out of (there is nothing that makes a teenager feel the need to do something that to tell them you cannot know about something you are too immature)

Access to birth control reminds kids of the risks of sex, something that it is all too easy to ignore when sex is some hidden secret thing that adults keep telling you you are too young to understand.

Ignorance just leads to ignorant choices. The statistics back this up.

You can claim it is a moral choice not to have sex but that is a personal decision for the individual. It is the States moral responsibility to give you all the information so what ever the choice it is an informed one.

Benny_Cake

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm an attender at a Quaker meeting, and Quakers would generally leave it up to the individual to form their own conscience on matters such as sex education, although certainly many Friends were at the forefront of campaigns in support of sex education as far back as the 1920s. So I'd certainly be unqualified to speak for the denomination as a whole, but my own views would be informed by my faith.

Another Quaker here (lapsed, if that's possible) and I would see my eagerness to see marriage equality as having been informed by Friends' ethics.

Some Irish meetings have blessed civil partnerships & will probably do the same for marriage. One woman who attends my mum's meeting is gay and has gotten many Friends very riled-up for a Yes vote!

obplayer

Isabel Low Urination wrote: »

Well as I said there was no sex ed in schools for the last thousands of years (am I right in saying its a phenomenon of the last 20 years or so?). People still knew how to procreate, I hope I do not need me to submit any evidence or quotes for this proposition.

As a Catholic my problem with sexual education is that it teaches contraception is ok (it is NOT according to the Catholic Church), fornication is ok as long as it is "safe" (it is NOT according to the Catholic church), having sexual relations with people of your own gender is ok (it is NOT according to the Catholic Church). You will find the relevant quotes for this in the Catechism, which basically a list of reasoned do's and dont's.

This is in a nutshell how sex ed is currently taught in Irish schools. I cannot imagine how one could call themselves a Catholic and support this crap. I also cannot imagine how helping a 10 year old put condoms on a banana would not be pretty damn weird.

Well in fairness you have just summed up perfectly the Catholic Church's view on sex and sex education. I think we are now in a position to decide what we feel about that view.

El_Duderino 09

obplayer wrote: »

Well in fairness you have just summed up perfectly the Catholic Church's view on sex and sex education. I think we are now in a position to decide what we feel about that view.

While that's true,it's also fair to point out that most responses were fairly positive about sex education. While CB is ok with faithfully following the pope's view on fornication, he hasn't responded to questions about the pope's view on sex education or his interpretation of the academic research.

Maybe it's because the Pope doesn't have a policy on sex education specifically, so how is CB to know what to think about it? Abdicating thought and subletting it to someone else is an interesting answer to the question and I value their input.

While CB's responses are as valid as any others, I wouldn't say they're representative of the country at large. (I hope at least )

El_Duderino 09

In the interest of fairness, I would like to report that I've come across another few articles which refine the position of sex education in relation to the outcomes.

I found further research which confirms that sex education leads to delayed first sexual intercourse and a reduction in unwanted pregnancies. However the reduction in unwanted pregnancies seems to be explained by more consistent use of contraceptives rather than delaying sex.

Also about 20 per cent of teenagers wanted more information on how to refuse sex.

tommy2bad

In fairness their is no real dependable research as to what effect sex ed has on behaviour, too many confounding influences for any definitive result.
Though it seems intuitive that education would affect behaviour, it also depends on the quality of that education and the context it's taught in. No point teaching abstinence in a culture that has rejected it or teaching safe sex when sex is still taboo.
Their needs to be an official curriculumcurriculum that's taught in every school, without any opt out. If some parents want to add to that with, that's their business whether that addition is sex is for marriage or sex is a pass time, just be carefully.
The notion that talking about sex will put it in their heads is nonsense, it's in their heads already. Of course you don't stop kids from starting fires by showing them how to crack matches.

El_Duderino 09

tommy2bad wrote: »

In fairness their is no real dependable research as to what effect sex ed has on behaviour, too many confounding influences for any definitive result.
Though it seems intuitive that education would affect behaviour, it also depends on the quality of that education and the context it's taught in. No point teaching abstinence in a culture that has rejected it or teaching safe sex when sex is still taboo.
Their needs to be an official curriculumcurriculum that's taught in every school, without any opt out. If some parents want to add to that with, that's their business whether that addition is sex is for marriage or sex is a pass time, just be carefully.
The notion that talking about sex will put it in their heads is nonsense, it's in their heads already. Of course you don't stop kids from starting fires by showing them how to crack matches.

Hey tommy

On the point about whether we can have dependable research on the effect of education. It depends on the level of certainty you're looking for. Strictly speaking you can only do reliable research in mathematics. Outside that everything becomes contaminated with confounding variables. On the other hand you there is an overwhelming consensus on the effect of education on sexual behavior.

They either find the effects mentioned above or they find no effect. I don't think I've ever seen more education leading to more unhealthy behaviours borne out in research. If you could demonstrate that effect of education on a repeatable basis, then you would get published and become reasonably famous.

I completely agree with your last point about sex education putting the idea of sex in their heads. Who on earth needs to promote sex to teenagers? That would be the easiest job in the world. Education is the most reliable and valid means we have found to control the sexual urges. Fear can work as motivation too but tends not to be a particularly healthy way to teach things to children.

lazybones32

Some of the benefits you attribute to sex-ed are untrue: Britain (NI excluded) has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and abortion in Europe and has maintained that position for many years. STI's and STD's are on the increase too; chlamydia has increased from approx. 35,000 in 1995 to 105,000 in 2005 and is expected to hit over 200,000 by 2015 (I became aware of this fact by reading about the chlamydia epidemic affecting Koala bears in Australia). The 17-24 yr. group comprises two-thirds of those affected by this disease/infection, which kind of piddles on the papers you cited as proving this age-group were seeing the most benefit from comprehensive sex-ed. (My figures were gotten from the Health Protection Agency, which became part of Public Health England in 2013) A simple browser search will provide you with much more information than I ever could...

I think only when we face the reality of the situation can we honestly and frankly begin to discuss about goals and how to achieve them. Until then, citing one paper as a success-story when nearly half a million new STI infections occur every year in Britain, is like not seeing the forest because you're looking at one tree.

El_Duderino 09

lazybones32 wrote: »

Some of the benefits you attribute to sex-ed are untrue: Britain (NI excluded) has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and abortion in Europe and has maintained that position for many years. STI's and STD's are on the increase too; chlamydia has increased from approx. 35,000 in 1995 to 105,000 in 2005 and is expected to hit over 200,000 by 2015 (I became aware of this fact by reading about the chlamydia epidemic affecting Koala bears in Australia). The 17-24 yr. group comprises two-thirds of those affected by this disease/infection, which kind of piddles on the papers you cited as proving this age-group were seeing the most benefit from comprehensive sex-ed. (My figures were gotten from the Health Protection Agency, which became part of Public Health England in 2013) A simple browser search will provide you with much more information than I ever could...

I think only when we face the reality of the situation can we honestly and frankly begin to discuss about goals and how to achieve them. Until then, citing one paper as a success-story when nearly half a million new STI infections occur every year in Britain, is like not seeing the forest because you're looking at one tree.

Thanks for the reply

Does the research compare levels of sex education and freedom to discuss sex, to rates of STIs? Are you assuming UK sex education is good? If so, why did you make that assumption?

It's true that STI rates are alarmingly high in the UK. It's also true that people who have had more sex education and more access to information will have lower rates of STIs than those who have less sex education. Is that what you meant?

Likewise if you ask people how much sex education they have had and divide them into high sex education and low sex education groups, you can predict that the low sex education group will have more STIs on average. The low sex education group will also have had first intercourse at an earlier age, be less confident about refusing sex, be less likely to use contraceptives and will have more unplanned pregnancies over their lifetime. Was that all covered in the paper you read?

In reference to the bit in bold, I don't think I made a claim about any age group experiencing most benefit from sex education. 17-24 year olds are most vulnerable to STIs in all countries as far as I know. Maybe you could help me on that point.

Could you site the source of the research you mention? I did a literature review on the topic so I can assure you it's not the 2 articles I posted in the OP. They are just 2 papers which were published in the British Medical Journal released that week. The evidence for positive benefits of sex education are consistent and reliable across decades of research.

Could you relate the findings of the paper you read to the questions in the OP about whether you support greater sex education and how your view relates to your religion's view on sex education?

Thanks

obplayer

lazybones32 wrote: »

Some of the benefits you attribute to sex-ed are untrue: Britain (NI excluded) has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and abortion in Europe and has maintained that position for many years. STI's and STD's are on the increase too; chlamydia has increased from approx. 35,000 in 1995 to 105,000 in 2005 and is expected to hit over 200,000 by 2015 (I became aware of this fact by reading about the chlamydia epidemic affecting Koala bears in Australia). The 17-24 yr. group comprises two-thirds of those affected by this disease/infection, which kind of piddles on the papers you cited as proving this age-group were seeing the most benefit from comprehensive sex-ed. (My figures were gotten from the Health Protection Agency, which became part of Public Health England in 2013) A simple browser search will provide you with much more information than I ever could...

I think only when we face the reality of the situation can we honestly and frankly begin to discuss about goals and how to achieve them. Until then, citing one paper as a success-story when nearly half a million new STI infections occur every year in Britain, is like not seeing the forest because you're looking at one tree.

Ummm....Any chance of some links to this interesting connection?

El_Duderino 09

obplayer wrote: »

Ummm....Any chance of some links to this interesting connection?

I didn't even want to ask about that but it does make you wonder...

JCX BXC

The Christian view on Sex Ed?

Sex in any type is completely unacceptable unless your married or its with a priest.