1 of 6

No

Write now Article Tools

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.

Add your voice

Know something about Should teens have sex education in schools??
We want to hear your view. Write now!