Sex education in primary school?

[SleepyWitch]

I've got an exam about Education in the US and UK coming up and have been reading about "localism" in the US school system (i.e. the curriculum etc differs from one school district/ state to the next).
one example of "extreme localism" was teaching sex education in elementary school, which implies that this is obviously not the norm over there and probably considered shocking by some people.
but this made me wonder, at what age should children be taught about sex and in what way should they be taught? won't it be too late if they are only taught at, say, 15/16 because they'll already have picked up lots of misinformation from their peers, TV etc by that age and many are already sexually active?

I remember when I was in primary school (that's year 1-4, age 6-10 over here), we watched this play about sex-ed which was specifically geared to young children, with the actors dressed up as all kinds of yuckie things (and nope, I'm not talking about huge walking, talking phallic symbols... it was all nice and cute). to my mind, there's nothing wrong with that and I couldn't imagine not having sex-ed in primary school...

so, what do you guys think?

[Niamh]

I think i first had sex ed when i was in 4th class (about nine) and then every year until i went into secondary school. I think learning about it in middle teans is too late. we were taught it along side puberty talks about periods etc, and it worked that way.

[papayahed]

I think we first had the talk in either 6th or 7th grade, I think that's either 11-12.

[muhsin]

Choosed number 1.

[SleepyWitch]

what made you choose number 1, muhsin?

hehhe, my crystal ball tells me there is a fierce debate ahead ;)

[muhsin]

I don't have that much time to talk tall, Sleepy, that was why I just wrote those few words and went. Any way, let me say a bit.

There is a clear demacation/difference between your culture and ours--African. This cannot be unconnected to it. Take this, at first, as your gauge. Thus, we shall (or should) have what is in line with our people, their norms and values and so on. And where this has less or no relevence, I well reckon, to all these.

Will, by God's grace, expatiate when I get back.

[Lily Adams]

We get it taught to us when we're in fifth grade here, (10 years old) but I was told about the nasty when I was in third grade.

I don't think you can really hide things from children nowadays. My life never was censored much. My parents knew that, you know, learning about all the "no no" stuff would come sooner or later. I didn't turn out to be some raging drug addict sex fiend.

I think ten is fine. You're about to go into middle school, which has kids in it about to go to high school. And we all know what high school is like! And it's not like they go into much detail. And they teach it to em at the end of the year.

Also you might as well teach them because maybe if you don't they won't know what to do and accidents might happen.

[Idril]

We weren't taught about it in school until Jr. High but times are different now. I had the experience of my own son going to a friend's house at the age of...I don't remember specifically now, I suppose 8 and his friend showing him online porn. He came home with lots and lots of questions. It wasn't a conversation I intended on having that early, but obviously, it was something that needed to be addressed and I think more and more that is becoming the case with young children. When I was a kid, we weren't exposed to the news stories and images that my children are exposed to. Kids become sexualized so young now in the form of clothing styles and and behavior. It's quite horrifying really but you can't hide your head in the sand, these kids should get correct information so they can make educated choices. And hopefully, theoretically, any information they would get in school would open a dialogue between parent and child to answer the more tricky questions of morality and health.

[SleepyWitch]

We weren't taught about it in school until Jr. High but times are different now. I had the experience of my own son going to a friend's house at the age of...I don't remember specifically now, I suppose 8 and his friend showing him online porn.
omg! was his friend the same age? did you do anything about it? as in tell the boy's mum or discourage your son from seeing him?

[Taliesin]

Sleepy, did you have something like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=uDoQFcQEpOQ) in mind?

[SleepyWitch]

Sleepy, did you have something like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=uDoQFcQEpOQ) in mind?

hahahaha :) great minds think alike :) nope, I did not have this in mind when I was posting this thread, but I thought of it a couple of mins afterwards :)

[motherhubbard]

I chose the first option because I think public schools should have sex education just before kids are likely to become sexually active, and I hope that is a little older than k-4. In our home we have discussions about sex from a very early age. I think that if you put all it off for “the big talk” it will be an uncomfortable and difficult to approach subject.

[Virgil]

I'm not sure why it's even the resposiblity of schools do this at any age. Is this reading, writing, math, history, science? I guess it could fall under biology, but it's not really biology that's being discussed. To connect with what Mushin said a few posts back, this is cultural norms. I don't know if that's in the perview of education. It seems to me that this should be a parental responsibility.

[motherhubbard]

I agree, Virgil, it should be the parent’s responsibility. The problem is that there is such a large number of parents who neglect their responsibilities. It becomes a public health issue.

[SleepyWitch]

yep, what about irresponsible parents? how can they made to be responsible?

apparently, many adults in the UK have weird notions about pregnancy themselves and believe that you can't get pregnant 'the first time'. I'll admit I don't have any statistical evidence of that, I read it in a comment that a reader posted in the online Times. As she put it teenage parents are a product of teenage parents.
so if the parents don't know about reproduction and contraception themselves, how are they supposed to teach the children? can anything be done to teach those parents? how could they be identified and targeted???

[Virgil]

yep, what about irresponsible parents? how can they made to be responsible?

apparently, many adults in the UK have weird notions about pregnancy themselves and believe that you can't get pregnant 'the first time'. I'll admit I don't have any statistical evidence of that, I read it in a comment that a reader posted in the online Times. As she put it teenage parents are a product of teenage parents.


I would like to see the evidence of that. :lol: I have a hard time believing it to be true. If I know anything about the English, it's they understand sex. :D

[SleepyWitch]

I would like to see the evidence of that. :lol: I have a hard time believing it to be true. If I know anything about the English, it's they understand sex. :D

which explains why they have the highest rate of unwanted teenage pregnancies in all of Europe?

[Virgil]

which explains why they have the highest rate of unwanted teenage pregnancies in all of Europe?

That's because they understand sex too well. :p No I'm only joking here, don't take that as serious. But still it is hard to believe that any significant number of people could possibly believe that one can't get pregnant the first time. Is there even a news article that would suggest this? Where are you getting that from? Sounds like urban legend to me.

[SleepyWitch]

as I said, it was in a comment by a reader (this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article4795056.ece)is the article. ah, it's the comment at the very top actually)

I totally disagree with this article by the way, although I'm more than willing to believe that they botched up sex education so badly that children end up with more questions (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article4795056.ece) than they started out with

PS: make that Western Europe, not all of the EU (cf. my post above)

[Virgil]

But where is the statement that says that there are some that think you can't get pregnant the first time? I didn't see that in there. By the way as you might expect I agree with much with what's in the article.

Let me just try to put forth my thoughts on this. High teenage pregnancy rates is a cultural phenomena. Education really has only a minor effect on rates if at all. Just see how little effect education has had on African aids rates. The impact of cultural norms completely overwhelms the impact of education. Now the problem of African aids is in mostly non-Islamic African countries. Comepare the low rates of aids of the Islamic countries, and yet they probably have even less sex education than the non-Islamic countries.


The HIV/AIDS pandemic ravages the African continent; compared with the wider world, Africa suffers a devastating AIDS problem. A closer look at rates of infections in the continent, however, reveals some interesting geographical trends. While the virus is markedly prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa, it is virtually negligible in the continent's North. This disparity raises an important issue; in our discourse about HIV/AIDS in Africa, we must identify key differences between the North and South. One difference that seems to beg attention is the fact that – simplifying only slightly – Islam is the faith of the North while Christianity is the faith of the South. Islam might account for the low rates of HIV infection in Africa's North. The claim is indeed a controversial one, and as such it requires a fair deal of support. This article examines the idea that Islam limits the spread of HIV/AIDS infection; reasons for why this may be so, theological and otherwise, form the heart of the paper. Additionally, we shall look at useful contextual information and some important objections to this article's major claim.http://knol.google.com/k/andrew-bell/religion-and-aids-in-africa/1gi7uxqqtt51h/2#

What this shows is that culture is the over riding factor on behavior. The reason I suspect that England has a higher rate of tean pregnancies and STDs is because of a cultural reason. Not whether there is more or less sex ed.

Now I believe these types of cultural phenomena can be transient. For instance England prior to Victorian era had the highest rate of alcoholism. Notice how many alcoholics are in Dickins. But by the turn of the 20th century England had one of the lowest rates of alcoholism. There was a normalizing effect due to bad behavior.

[SleepyWitch]

hum... I suppose it all depend on what exactly you mean by "culture".
actually, the cultures of Western European countries are pretty similar.. maybe not so much in terms of their cultural history, but in terms of today's values.
I don't believe anyone in the UK thinks teenage pregnancy is desirable and should be encouraged any more than ppl in France, Sweden, Germany, Spain etc believe so.
I agree about Africa, seeing as in sub-Saharan Africa ppl have a different concept of diseases and find the idea of having to take medicine regularly or use a condom alien and difficult to grasp (I'm not saying they are dumb or anything, only that it's diametrically opposed to their traditional beliefs). Edit plus, tradition or no tradition, in Africa you get a lot of selective migration, i.e. males (temporarily) migrating to the big cities and leaving their families behind. In the cities there is a lot of prostitution due to this, so the probability of contracting HIV/AIDS is high.
But I'd argue that the cultural differences between Western European countries are negligible as compared to the differences between Europe as a whole and Africa.
so, what exactly is it you mean by "cultural" reasons?

[Virgil]

hum... I suppose it all depend on what exactly you mean by "culture".
actually, the cultures of Western European countries are pretty similar.. maybe not so much in terms of their cultural history, but in terms of today's values.
I don't believe anyone in the UK thinks teenage pregnancy is desirable and should be encouraged any more than ppl in France, Sweden, Germany, Spain etc believe so.

...so, what exactly is it you mean by "cultural" reasons?

And I suspect the teenage pregnacy rate between England and Germany is relatively negligible. They both may be very similar cultures on a macro scale, but on a micro scale I bet there are distinctions, which make up the difference in the rates. Heck, there are cultural distinctions between New Yorkers and Californians. Anthropoligists can identify the distinctions between English and Germans. I'm not sure I can. I hope that defined "cultural" for you. I know it's round about, but it's probably the best that I can do. Many things go into that cultural distinction. For instance the notion of hooliganism at football games is an English phenomena, and perhaps the notion of neo-nazi youths a German. Those are just really gross elements that are dramatic to make a point, but clothes styles and flirting and male/female interactions and stuff like that are also cultural distinctions. I'm no expert on English and Germans but I bet there are differences.

[motherhubbard]

I think you bring up a good point, Virgil. There is a culture that comes with poverty, particularly generational poverty that does promote teen pregnancy. In every society generational poverty has the same overall characteristics and risky behavior and teen pregnancy are among them.

[Virgil]

I think you bring up a good point, Virgil. There is a culture that comes with poverty, particularly generational poverty that does promote teen pregnancy. In every society generational poverty has the same overall characteristics and risky behavior and teen pregnancy are among them.

That's right, and education actually has very little effect on it. My God, everywhere you turn they try to tell you about birth control. They practically shove condoms at you, and yet people still get pregnant and diseases.

[SleepyWitch]

hehe, if by "culture" you mean poverty, I totally agree :)
(Virge, this is your cue to regale us with the story of how you were from a poor background and never got involved in teenage pregnancy ;) j/k )

[Virgil]

hehe, if by "culture" you mean poverty, I totally agree :)
(Virge, this is your cue to regale us with the story of how you were from a poor background and never got involved in teenage pregnancy ;) j/k )

:D No. There is a sub culture that is ingrained poor. I guess I had the advantage of having parents who were not poor growing up. Poverty hit them in mid life. What Mom-H is refering to is a type that is poor across generations, and therefore cultural habits are actually handed down. Let me tell you of a neighbor. She's a great grandmother now. She had a daughter when unmarried, her daughter had her first daughter before she was married, and now her grand daughter just had a child this year. The grand daughter is around nineteen. All three barely have a high school education. Actually I'm not sure if they do. The great grand daughter is also a girl, a beautiful six month child. Now I hate to speculate like this, but what do you think the great grand daughter's future is going to be? How do they break this cycle?

[papayahed]

But still it is hard to believe that any significant number of people could possibly believe that one can't get pregnant the first time. Is there even a news article that would suggest this? Where are you getting that from? Sounds like urban legend to me.

I have talked with grown women who think they have to be on their period to get pregnant. It's frightening the things I've heard, and not just from poor women either.

[Virgil]

I have talked with grown women who think they have to be on their period to get pregnant. It's frightening the things I've heard, and not just from poor women either.

I can believe that. That cycle calculation is confusing.

[papayahed]

I can believe that. That cycle calculation is confusing.



:confused: erm, what's confusing, during ovulation women are fertile, during the period you are not.

[Virgil]

:confused: erm, what's confusing, during ovulation women are fertile, during the period you are not.

Yeah but when is ovulation? One week after the period, two weeks before the period??? How many days is ovulation? The whole thng just confuses the heck out of me. :lol:

[Bakiryu]

Hey, i am a woman and it confuses me too. Isn't it a week before?

Anyway, i think children learn that stuff on their own, sex education is a bit redundant and there's always the internet.

[papayahed]

That's because they understand sex too well. :p No I'm only joking here, don't take that as serious. But still it is hard to believe that any significant number of people could possibly believe that one can't get pregnant the first time. Is there even a news article that would suggest this? Where are you getting that from? Sounds like urban legend to me.


Hey, i am a woman and it confuses me too. Isn't it a week before?

Anyway, i think children learn that stuff on their own, sex education is a bit redundant and there's always the internet.

and that's why people think you can't get pregnant on the first time or much else about the reproductive cycle.

[motherhubbard]

Hey, i am a woman and it confuses me too. Isn't it a week before?

Anyway, i think children learn that stuff on their own, sex education is a bit redundant and there's always the internet.

http://www.menstruation.com.au/fertility/fertilitysignals.html here Baki. and you know, the sex ed you get on the school bus, in the school, and at home are really three different lessons. I would say that the school bus sex ed is of a very poor quality.

[Bakiryu]

http://www.menstruation.com.au/fertility/fertilitysignals.html here Baki. and you know, the sex ed you get on the school bus, in the school, and at home are really three different lessons. I would say that the school bus sex ed is of a very poor quality.

thanks for the link! it was very informative. Um, does it still happen midcycle if yours is twice as long as it's common? (46 days)

Yes, but if the person really wants to know, they'll find out. When i wanted to know about it, i just went to the library and read up on it, then finding out it wasn't really that interesting, went on to do something else. Kids that age don't really care, it's toward the middle school years they really start paying attention (I mean about 11-12)

[motherhubbard]

If you have a strange or irregular cycle you may be better off looking for the physical signs of fertility. But you have to be committed. You can’t just wake up one day and decide that the risk is low because you don’t feel fertile! And, of course, this doesn’t protect against STDs.

[sprinks]

I went to 2 different primary schools for the majority of my primary school education. I think that the first "girl talk" I got was in Year 5 (age 10). Then I got at least one a year for the next 2 years. The schools would never talk to girls and guys at the same time, it was always girls in one room, guys in another. Then, in year 8, at a new school (high school) in Health Education we had sex ed with both girls and guys in the same class. Health was once a week and sex ed would go for about a term (10 weeks) therefore 10 lessons. Aspects of it were also covered in Christian ed. I'm pretty sure it was compulsory in Years 9 and 10 too. In Year 11 you don't do health any more, but it is covered in Human Biology and also you can chose to do Health studies but it comes under another name. When they covered sex ed it was never only about the physical side of it but also the relationship side of it. I don't know if its like that in all schools or just because I go to a religious school so they place more emphasis on the emotional side of it.
Last year the teachers heard about couples that were sleeping together so girls were in one room, guys in the other, and we all got talked to about it.
When I was in primary school a lot of my friends started sleeping around at a very young age, and I probably learnt more from them and the media than I did from the talks at school.

[princesspoppi]

I think we were about 11 or 12 when we had the sex ed talk. I do recall that abstinence was never spoken of, it was just assumed that you would have sex when you got to high school and so you got talked to about contraception in high school, but that was about it. Awfully sad now I think back on it.

[SleepyWitch]

I can believe that. That cycle calculation is confusing.

poor Virgil, never trust anything that bleeds for five days in a row and doesn't die, eh?
I'm not too sure about the ovulation thing myself, but I think for the purposes of contraception it's a good idea to assume one is fertile whenever one is not menstruating. as for STD, that's a different matter of course, plus, I've heard that a new "egg" can even start to form while the woman is menstruating, so it's not a good idea to have unprotected sex during menstruation, either, if you want to be 100% safe. but as I said, I'm not sure about that.
I guess the calculation is more confusing when a woman is actually trying to get pregnant (i.e. calculate when she'll ovulate) than when you're trying to calculate when she'll menstruate.


I went to 2 different primary schools for the majority of my primary school education. I think that the first "girl talk" I got was in Year 5 (age 10). Then I got at least one a year for the next 2 years. The schools would never talk to girls and guys at the same time, it was always girls in one room, guys in another. Then, in year 8, at a new school (high school) in Health Education we had sex ed with both girls and guys in the same class. Health was once a week and sex ed would go for about a term (10 weeks) therefore 10 lessons. Aspects of it were also covered in Christian ed. I'm pretty sure it was compulsory in Years 9 and 10 too. In Year 11 you don't do health any more, but it is covered in Human Biology and also you can chose to do Health studies but it comes under another name. When they covered sex ed it was never only about the physical side of it but also the relationship side of it. I don't know if its like that in all schools or just because I go to a religious school so they place more emphasis on the emotional side of it.
Last year the teachers heard about couples that were sleeping together so girls were in one room, guys in the other, and we all got talked to about it.
When I was in primary school a lot of my friends started sleeping around at a very young age, and I probably learnt more from them and the media than I did from the talks at school.

what age is primary school over there? I mean at what age did your friends start sleeping around?

what did they teach you about the emotional side? was it more of a prescriptive, religious nature like "you should only have sex with someone you love" or did it warn you about the emotional mess you could end up in?

[LadyW]

I attended a Catholic primary school, which is perhaps why I didn't receive any sex education there.

However, even at my Secondary School (also Catholic) we never received any form of sex education. Of course, we learnt about puberty and reproduction in Biology, but what good is that when any sort of discussion regarding "the act" is tabooed.

In my opinion, kids should be taught the (pardon the pun) ins and outs of sex in the very first year of Secondary school (age 11-12), after having some foundation to work upon from Primary school.

I know a girl - who is actually older than me - who doesn't have a single clue about sex; she's now16, which is the age of consent here in the U.K. Her parents (in particular her father) won't allow her to watch anything with explicit content - violence, swearing, nudity etc. I mean really, what's so adult about "Ugly Betty"?

The point I'm trying to make is, when she's thrust into some kind of environment where she needs some knowledge of what goes on in the world, she's not going to be able to cope very well. I would imagine she'll eventually grow to resent her father when she's older.

[sprinks]

what age is primary school over there? I mean at what age did your friends start sleeping around?

what did they teach you about the emotional side? was it more of a prescriptive, religious nature like "you should only have sex with someone you love" or did it warn you about the emotional mess you could end up in?

Around the ages of 8 - 9 is when they started. I still can't fathom how they could ever have gotten themselves into such a situation at that age. Then I have other friends that started around the age of 12.

They talked about how relationships worked... Told us about healthy relationships and what isn't right in a relationship and how to deal with it and get help if you are in a bad one. Being a Christian school, they do try to promote sex after marriage, but they are aware that not many people really are going to do that, so they do teach us about what can happen, physically and emotionally, if you have a one night stand or something like that. They also talk about how even when you think you're in love when you're young, having a baby can affect the relationship greatly. So pretty much they try to teach us what they believe, but they never go "Sex is bad! Don't do it til waaaayyy after you are married!"

[Niamh]

:D No. There is a sub culture that is ingrained poor. I guess I had the advantage of having parents who were not poor growing up. Poverty hit them in mid life. What Mom-H is refering to is a type that is poor across generations, and therefore cultural habits are actually handed down. Let me tell you of a neighbor. She's a great grandmother now. She had a daughter when unmarried, her daughter had her first daughter before she was married, and now her grand daughter just had a child this year. The grand daughter is around nineteen. All three barely have a high school education. Actually I'm not sure if they do. The great grand daughter is also a girl, a beautiful six month child. Now I hate to speculate like this, but what do you think the great grand daughter's future is going to be? How do they break this cycle?

I watched this programme a while back on tv where it was all about teenage pregnancies. there were a couple of families where women who where grand parents in their early 30's. I think one woman was only 28! now if that isnt bad eduation i dont know what is. And i think they were proud of it!

[Annamariah]

Here the sex education starts at 4th or 5th grade (can't remember exactly, but anyway, the kids are 10-11 years old then) within human biology lessons. In addition we had one lesson in 6th grade, where a nurse came to talk about puberty just with the girls, and I guess that the boys had some sort of lesson of their own too. The same nurse came to talk to us once again when we were on the 8th or 9th grade, and I remember that we were taken to a fair called "Sex Step" too.

I think it's good to start sex education early enough, I mean a couple of years before kids start to have sex. What good is it if it comes too late? I think I've learned everything I need to know at school, and I think that in general the sex education in Finland is pretty good.

What I don't like about it, though, is that it's basically "we know you'll all be having sex soon, so just remember to use condom when you do it". They don't really even mention the fact that it's not necessary to have sex when you are dating, that you can choose to wait until marriage.

[Scheherazade]

Just realised that 1/4 of the posts in this thread belong to Virgil...

Not saying anything... Just pointing out some statistical data.

[Virgil]

What I don't like about it, though, is that it's basically "we know you'll all be having sex soon, so just remember to use condom when you do it". They don't really even mention the fact that it's not necessary to have sex when you are dating, that you can choose to wait until marriage.
That's what bugs me too. They have this mentality of a 1960s (at least in the US) hippie generation attitude. But that being said I agree, despite the impression I may have given earlier, I do think some form of sex education is warrented and around 10-12 years of age is probably appropriate. And parents should have theoption to not have their children attend if they so wish. What concerns me is what Annamariah states above. I do not expect schools to be advocating sex, but the children should be taught about it. Reality is that parents are not the most capable on the subject.


Just realised that 1/4 of the posts in this thread belong to Virgil...

Not saying anything... Just pointing out some statistical data.
Yeah? ;) Actually I started well into the thread but then Sleepy and I got into a back and forth. Despite our differences of opinion Sleepy and I converse well together. :)

[SFG75]

I've got an exam about Education in the US and UK coming up and have been reading about "localism" in the US school system (i.e. the curriculum etc differs from one school district/ state to the next).
one example of "extreme localism" was teaching sex education in elementary school, which implies that this is obviously not the norm over there and probably considered shocking by some people.

Most American schools do have curriculum that deals with sexuality/human growth & development. At the earliest primary years, it's mainly "good touch-bad touch" material which is age appropriate. Anything beyond that doesn't get covered until the higher primary years where they are taught about bodily changes, hormones, and that kind of thing. Contraception isn't discussed until the 7th grade in many areas.

American schools receive local, state, and federal funding. They are "local" in the sense that an elected school board hires a superintendent who then manages the school for them. Each local district does have their own curriculum that is created by a committee of teachers under the supervision of an administrator. The states provide funding help as well and the feds kick in money for the food program, as well as other things such as special education. Of all the funding sources, local is the largest amount, with the feds kicking in the least. In my own state, there was a proposal to make every public school teacher an employee of the state and just paying them out of state funds. The theory was that it would reduce costs at the local level as the vast majority of cost is teacher pay and benefits. The proposal didn't fly as the local areas wanted "control."

[Equality72521]

I was told about it in Elementary School (primary??) by my parents, just like the super basic, very straight up "he + she + doing this = baby" overall. What they taught us at school was more like what happens to your body as you get older.

We never really got a "sex education" class, we have a health class but that's it and it's about all sorts of diseases and ways to take care of the body. No school has every really given any form of eduation on sex other than "it will happen, be safe." So, everything I know has come from friends. Even my family was like "if you want to do it, tell us, we'll get you birth control." THATS IT! Thank god for them I'm a good kid. lol.

[amanda_isabel]

Hmmm. Around here the topic is still a rather hot debate, but I come from an elementary school where they taught us about sex. The lessons began in fourth grade; I was about 9 then, and I was okay with it. It came right before I needed a baby bra and at least I was ready. :)

Most schools around here don't, I believe, and the school I graduated from was a Christian school and just decided to take matters into their own hands. but as far as public schools go is another matter entirely, as the debate progresses as to whether or not to integrate it in Health Education or something like that.

I had a teacher, too, in high school (public high school) who taught us about sex in English class. She even brought really disgusting pictures of organs infected with.. gonorrhea, say. *shiver*

[Chava]

Having spent time on a sex advice forum; answering questions for teens on issues that span from contraception to legislation, I feel confident in saying that many many people would gain something from sex-ed in school.
The amount of ridiculous suggestions I hear everyday? "Showering in coke prevents pregnancy" "you can't get pregnant on your period" etc.

Most of the very confused kids seem to come from the US, though by no means are they the only ones. Many of them have told me that they didn't get any teaching in school, nor were their parents interested in talking about it. Wether it be your belief that sex is inappropriate or not, lets face the fact that kids are curious, and you may as well let them explore with as much preparation as you can give them.

Furthermore, my forum experience tells me that those kids who know the most have sexual debut ages that are higher than those who didn't get any information. Maybe as the mystery dissapears through information, it's easier to restrain your curiosity.

But please yes, lets have some organised and correct information for kids and teenagers please. The next time a girl asks me if she might be pregnant, I'm going to scream!

[Virgil]

A very good post Chava. I found this very interesting:


Furthermore, my forum experience tells me that those kids who know the most have sexual debut ages that are higher than those who didn't get any information. Maybe as the mystery dissapears through information, it's easier to restrain your curiosity.


It may be you're right. A lot depends on how the teacher presents the material.

[jhonerliz]

I think sex education should be taught in primary school, before they reach their puberty age. here in our country, pupils, ages 9 and above are studying reproduction and also given them awareness about contraceptives.
i think young girls, who are will be having their menstrual period, should be aware and ready for it.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Around the ages of 8 - 9 is when they started. I still can't fathom how they could ever have gotten themselves into such a situation at that age. Then I have other friends that started around the age of 12.

You know people who started having sex when they were 8 years old?!?! That is completely ridiculous! Girls haven't even started their period by then! Do they think that makes it okay? I'm sorry, I do not mean to sound judgemental or obnoxious, but I simply cannot understand the mentality behind this.

I went to a catholic elementary school where they start teaching sex ed in the fourth grade, so when you're about 9-10. They lead up to it from before that, though, when they talk about marriage and relationships, though obviously not into detail. They start sex ed by explaining puberty, and how basically the reason we go through puberty is so that we can have kids, and then on to sex. While they do explain sex, it's spoken of something to happen later on down the road, obviously. When a child is that young, having sex should not even occur to him or her to try; I know it certainly didn't to me. Girls and boys were not separated. My parents were also very good at teaching myself and my siblings as well.

I just don't understand how kids even think to try this at such a young age- even though you might understand it when you're ten years old, it's not really something you think a lot about. Most girls that young still think boys have cooties.

[Virgil]

Most girls that young still think boys have cooties.

Most boys have cooties at any age. :p ;)

[Immortall708]

Sex with someone is natural in the way of the nature. It is obvious as I suppose. Then, why not to teach small child about those things, before they have own age of the puberty. In this age is not a law against it. Not in the naturality of the sexual life.

[Shannanigan]

A great book to read: "When Sex Goes to School," by Kristin Luker. I'm actually reading it now, and it has simply captivated me.

I was given a very generalized "sex talk" in 5th grade, where the girls and boys were separated into two separate rooms to watch a video about puberty and were able to ask teachers of the same sex any questions. I remember my friends and being eager to learn, because a lot of our parents hadn't told us anything, but our parents did have to sign a waiver giving the school permission to talk to us about this stuff. I was thankful for it.

In junior high, 7th grade science class was Health, and sex education was included. STD's, how pregnancy happens, effectiveness of birth control methods, and abstinence being the only 100% protection against pregnancy and STD's was taught.

I feel I was well educated on the things I needed to know in a timely manner, but that's because I was given a book by my father and I read it thoroughly, then searched medical websites for other information. A lot of my friends were not avid readers, and thus missed a LOT of really essential information. American parents seem to be scared to talk with their kids about sex, and while I really feel it should be THEIR job, since they aren't doing it, schools should at least in the meantime step in and take the role while we figure out how to get parents to step up to the plate.