Apparently doctors are calling for sex education in primary school to prevent teenage pregnancy and the spread of STDs. The proposal includes showing kids graphic images of venereal diseases, though critics claimed this could traumatise them.

An old article:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172285897/44#44

Sex education lacking in Qld: forum

http://news.smh.com.au/sex-education-lacking-in-qld-forum/20080225-1umu.html

Queensland teenagers are at greater risk of abuse, infections and pregnancies due to an ad hoc approach to sex education, a forum has heard.

Research indicated less than five per cent of Queensland students received comprehensive sex education, Family Planning Queensland manager for research and development Holly Brennan told the forum in Brisbane on Monday.

"At the moment it is really up to the school's discretion of how they do it because there are no checks and balances in place," Ms Brennan told AAP outside the forum.

"So some schools will have a fantastic program that goes from grades one to 12 while others just give young people a five-minute talk before they go to schoolies at the end of Year 12."

Ms Brennan said parents were not talking to their children about sexual issues as they believed it was covered at school.

She said young people who received sexual education were less likely to be abused or catch sexually transmitted diseases.

"If young people get sexuality education they are more likely to have sex at a later age and more likely to use contraception when they do, and they are more likely to do it without the influence of drugs and alcohol and be making choices that aren't as exploitative," she said.

Ms Brennan said Queensland was second only to the Northern Territory when it came to child sex abuse and teenage pregnancy rates in Australia.

"People support (sex education), but there is no leadership saying this has to be done," she said.

I had sex education in primary school, third grade I believe. It was probably a good idea. The parents came along too. People could opt out if they wanted to.

I had it at some stage too, but it was a night time thing. I forget whether it was official. It certainly didn;t involve any graphic images. I think we were too young for that.

Me too, I think it was in 4th class, we had to go up to the school with our parents and watch some video about the birds and bees, I'm sure I walked out with no idea about what it meant, that was over 35 years ago, I hope the films have changed.

Let children be children...  I never had anything said till 6th class and we went to what they called a Father and Son night run by the local council.

that was plenty early enough.

Do kids need sex education these days?  Most of them know more than their parents - even in primary school.

Hmm.

The conservative guy in me says no.


The aim of this is to protect kids from contracting HIV and other diseases, as well as pregnancy.


That's all well and good, but I can't help but think the introduction of a program like this would have a side-effect, in that it would introduce kids to sex too early and thus they will become curious and try it themselves. I didn't even know what sex was and never understood it fully until about 13.

A pet hate of mine is seeing 12 year old school girls wandering around the streets after dark wearing make-up and sex and the city gear (Aka. Prostitute outfits). I can't help but think a proposal like this would lead to things like this increasing. Therefore, the rate of pedophilia would skyrocket.

However, the freethinking mind of me says that our ancestors children (Pre-Christianity) probably knew more about sex than our post-Christian ancestors children. Whether this is or was a good thing (Natural thing), I don't know. But a greater part of me thinks not.  

Quote:

I can't help but think the introduction of a program like this would have a side-effect, in that it would introduce kids to sex too early

They generally play catch-up. Some kids will always find out first. It is better to give than accurate information to go with the porn.

It's probably better to introduce them to the subject in primary school.  At least the boys have a sense of detachment. Girls obviously develop a bit earlier (so they tell me) so it's maybe more relevant to them at age 10.  

I remember seeing a porn magazine (very tame black and white) at the age of about 10 behind the Cub Scout Hut. All the older kids were reacting to it as if it was something great. It didn't do anything much for me, but I played along with the Oooh's and Aah's anyway.

I think that teaching it to teens would be less successful because of the giggle factor.

Sex education is a waste of time and money. It would be more morally ill to place the burden on the common man to pay for these new education programs only for it to have no significant effect on teen's perception of sex.

It's idiotic to think that somehow an hour of sex education is going to undo the psychological exploitation the sex industry has had on our kids. Do you know why sex is all over the television, the internet, and magizines? Because it makes money!

And unlike, you know.. drugs.. we need sex. Physically, we need it. Like food. Something else that has been exploited for profit. Because we cannot fully detatch ourself from this basic essential, those who make money off of it always have the upperhand. We can't simply "go cold turkey" off sex. Biologicaly we're suppose to have sex.

Ofcourse, biologicaly we shouldn't have STDs either. Because of evolution, but people are dumb. They have sex with just about anything, because they're deranged. Do to personal malfunctions and outside forces. Whatever. The point is that sex education is at best misguided, and at worst, self-destructive and evil.


There's nothing wrong with teenagers having sex. Teenagers are growing up, and as you get older, you want sex. That's nature telling you, you need to raise a family, and continue the human race. Perfectly natural and beautiful. What's not natural and beautiful is some dumb slut who "needs attention" and ends up not even knowing who the father is of her ugly ass baby. But, I blame her, and the parents. The parents for raising such a stupid brat, and her for choosing to be a stupid brat.


STDs can easily be controlled. People should be forced to register their sexual diseases. And have to wear something so we can all see and avoid sexual contact with them. Or at the very least, if they're going to have sexual relations, they have to by law inform their partners of their STDs or face the law. Some people would whine that's an invasion of human rights, they'll thank me when they don't have warts all over their mouth. I'd simply say it's people's own fault for sleeping around knowing others might have STDs, but there's alot of liars out there. You fall inlove, you think you know someone, and then they pull some poo on you. Don't give them that oppurtunity.


The best sex education is the one where we don't tolerate people playing games. Sex can be very gratifying and good, it can also be very harmful and chaotic. We allow people to use lighters, that doesn't mean they can start a fire. All the same, people can have sex, that doesn't give them leeway to spread their diseases and be idiots about it.

Children need to be taught this, and it does not take taxpayer money. Only concerned parents, and concerned adults as a whole. You know, there was a time if when a kid was being a dickhead, he got his ass kicked by everyone in the neighborhood, not just his parents.

I'm not saying we should all be reactionaries, as if sixty years ago was somehow magicaly better then today, but certainly there are some traits we should keep, and some we should discard. And I believe that attitude in how we raise our children, and how we perceive sex is one we should keep.

personally i think the parents should be telling their kids about safety and sex

but if you were to have it in schools- you don't need to show them nasty pictures. you tell kids you'll get sick if you do A or don't do B and they'll pretty much get it.

i think graphic images could be too traumatising- maybe even spin out a few kids with sexual dysfunctions

mantra wrote on Jan 11^th, 2009 at 5:05pm:

Do kids need sex education these days?  Most of them know more than their parents - even in primary school.

Do kids know about safe sex though? And do their parents teach them that?

I say sex education is a good, nay great thing. look at the utter shambles that America has with its abstinence programs.

When I was in primary school the focus of this sort of education was more based on bullying and harassment rather than real sexual education.

I wouldn't say I'm against it, and it would be nightmare trying to come up with a curriculum that everyone is happy about. I would prefer this to having multiculturalism rammed down there neck.

I'd have to support the idea - as long as it focussed primarily on the dangers and how to avoid them.

As for pictures, they probably wouldn't any more shocking than the evening news.

I can't believe how conservative most of you are about this issue - even younger people  ;D who should be way beyond the fuddy duddyism of the baby boomers.

I'm 52, and even I had sex education in primary school. It focussed on the biological aspects of course. It lacked on some of the social aspects, which I believe they teach nowadays, and there is no way that they'd go into taboo subjects like STI's or homosexuality then.

Look,  kids need it before their bodies change. Of course they do! They need to know what's going on, and not just hear about it in a half-arsed fashion from their classmates or from the internet. Wow! what a well balanced society we'd have if the internet was our sole source of sex education.

All I can say is that if people are still hung up on a simple matter like sex education in the 21st Century, it's a very sad reflection on society.

I had sex education in primary school. About grade six or seven. I think perhaps children are too immature to deal with it at that age. But with the age of puberty getting younger and younger, children should be learning about sexual health and awareness at a younger age. High school is too late for some kids. By then a lot of the kids would have already experienced erections, periods, and perhaps even some sort of mild sexual interaction with others. If the government is going to control our school system, they should at least do it properly and educate our children thoroughly in all fields including sexual health and awareness.

deleted wrote on Jan 26^th, 2009 at 8:13pm:

High school is too late for some kids. By then a lot of the kids would have already experienced erections, periods, and perhaps even some sort of mild sexual interaction with others.

I wouldn't be surprised if half of high school kids have had sexual intercourse by the time they get out.

Plugging our ears and pretending the problem doesn't exist won't solve anything.