Education >
Education (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould teens have sex education in schools?
Results so far:
| Yes | 85% | 1761 votes | Total: 2073 votes | |
| No | 15% | 312 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesHigh schools should always include sex education in their curriculum. It seems silly to omit it, for reasons such as parents don't want other people teaching their teenagers about sex. It doesn't matter what parents think of this matter, because in this society, all teenagers should be taught the facts and consequences of having sex. Too many teens are having unprotected sex, too many abortions are happening, and too many babies are being born to parents that can't support them. It is a major problem in the United States, as well as other countries. There are various important reasons to introduce sex education to teens, and no teen should be sheltered from these lessons.
For one, knowledge is wealth, especially regarding sex. People say ignorance is bliss, but not when it comes to sex. Teens should learn about sex, why we have it, and why we should use protection. They should learn that it is not an outlet to peruse with ease, rather, it is something to be considered seriously before acting on. Classes should be required of teens because it is a proven fact that kids with more knowledge on the subject will most often have a more enjoyable first sexual encounter. Kids who who are sheltered from learning about sexual orientation will engage in sex more easily and naively...and will probably be unfulfilled. Not only that, but they may find themselves in an unfortunate situation, with someone who they don't really want to be with. As long as schools include sex ed. classes, our society is one step closer to creating a more aware teen population.
Aside from simply educating our teens about sex, it is important to understand that classes should be offered as a tool for direction. Some teens grow up with parents who address sex at an early age, while some teens never actually have the "talk" with their parents. Whichever road these kids go down, having an unbiased person educate them is important because it offers them a different perspective, and allows them to make smart decisions on their own. Classes should direct teens to approach their sexual orientation with confidence. On a personal level, I believe such classes should inform students that sex is not something to be taken lightly. There is no need to have sex with every boyfriend or girlfriend you ever have, if you don't want to. These days, many kids engage in sex because they feel it is a "cool" thing to do, or they feel forced. This is utterly wrong, and children should be taught that they have the ability to make smart decisions regarding sex, and schools should implement the teaching of such smart decisions.
We would like to see teen pregnancies decrease, so high school sex ed. is practically a requirement. If nothing else, it will help already sexually active students gain some insight to their activities. Hopefully it will be informative enough so that students can buy condoms without feeling embarassed, have sex only when they feel it is "right", and feel that they can talk to their parents about it. The worst thing a parent can do is never talk to their child about sex, because most often than not that child will go on to have numerous sex partners and treat sex lightly. In doing this, they will just add to the already huge epidemic of unplanned pregnancies, abortions, and teen drop-outs due to pregnancy.
Sex is an important part of the human race, and should be taught to students in the same way as any other subject. Hopefully, it will stop being taboo (because it still is to a slight degree) and start being accepted.
Learn more about this author, Lisbet Loiselle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The sexual education of teenagers is only the business of the parents and teenager in question, unless the parents demand that form of education, enroll the student themselves, and assist in the outlining of the curriculum. This is naturally so because sex education is a parent's responsibility, and the curriculum may conflict with what the parent's wish to teach their children; there's also a legitimate concern about how it may implicitly condone premature sexual behavior.
It's true that there are parents who don't teach their children about sex, but it is simply not right that a parent has to make the initiative sometimes to opt their child out just because of the rare circumstance that a parent may not care enough about his children to teach them. No, the solution for this problem shouldn't be to put sex into the public school curriculum. In the community, there should be alternate outreach programs for teenagers. The outreach can involve education sessions for the parents to ensure that they know what to say and when.
The common fear behind all these calls for sex education is the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy, but there are a myriad of dangers that the young person encounters, including drunk driving, drug abuse, careless driving, and very aggressive bullying. Yet, we are focused on sex education! Why? On this same logic of fear, why not have publicly funded alcohol and drug education courses? Why not have mandatory courses in personal finance, conflict resolution, driving (hey, it would knock down a teenager's insurance premiums without them having to spend the hundreds of dollars on driver's ed!), and anger management? What with all the dangers teenagers face both now and in the future, why are crises around premature and promiscuous sexual activity the only ones we seem so focused on trying to prevent as to have whole courses or themes of study stretching for days or even weeks on end?
In addition to these concerns, is how sex education courses may violate the morals that parents are trying to instill into their teens. For example, a comprehensive sex education program as touted by such groups as Planned Parenthood may be fine for parents who support abortion and have little qualms, relatively speaking, about the implicit condoning of teenage sex, but that is not okay for all parents. If it's abstinence only sex education, you have another group who may decide that abstinence is not all they want teenagers to learn from the public schools. At least with the latter group of concerned citizens, there is the opportunity of supplementing the material with information on birth control from other sources, but parents in the former group typically have to choose between Planned Parenthood style sex education or nothing from the public schools and that is assuming that they even know everything about what that course or theme covers! I simply think many of these parents would prefer teaching their children, instead of the schools sticking their collective noses where they don't belong.
The best thing overall is that we tear down all public school facilities, but failing that we should simply leave the educational facilities to vocationally oriented material. Unless one considers prostitution a valid and viable career option, there is simply no reason for sex education in school.
Learn more about this author, Crystal Lake.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Education (Other)
- Has school choice improved public schools?
- Is the No Child Left Behind law beneficial for children?
- Do children learn better in single-sex schools?
- Are teacher evaluation systems fair and effective?
- When schools offer free or low-cost laptops to students, should these laptops be restricted?
- Should college students be required to mentor younger children?
