What do you expect? I don't see there being a national agenda for sx education, incorporating a scientific, evidence-based and secular model ever in my lifetime.

The religious right would have a coronary. Its cultural warriors from Andrew Bolt to Miranda Devine as well as right-wing politicians etc would be working to hijack it from day one. In states such as Queensland and WA, such a move could be politically suicidal. Witness the massive controversy blown up against reproductive health organisation SHINE in Adelaide.

I agree with the last poster but I still think we have to try. I can't believe sexual health education in the Netherlands was without opposition and, according to this article, the Dutch program is one of the best and most comprehensive.

Sexual health education should be understood in the same way as we understand personal hygiene or nutrition. That is, it should be taught in as matter-of-fact ways as much as possible without puritanical moralising nor pornographic voyeurism (two sides of the same coin).

What an excellent article.
Good posts, too, from the 2 previous posters.

While I am Dutch and have received sex-ed in the Netherlands, my children received sex-ed at Australian public schools so I’m well aware how much the need for improvement in sex-ed is in Australia.

While the abortion rate in the Netherlands is very low (and there have been years when the rate was as low as 4 and 5 per 1000), it is a fact that most abortions are performed on immigrant women who have missed out on sex-ed. This is a clear indication how important comprehensive sex-ed is, especially when STI are increasing.

I’ve contributed to quite a few abortion articles this year and last year and have been pushing ‘comprehensive sex education’ and have sustained that there are not too many abortions; there are to many unwanted pregnancies all this time. I’m glad to find that this topic has come up in an article.

It became clear to me after debating David Palmer, the Christian author of on of the abortion articles, that the priority of fundies is NOT the saving of foetuses, but the control of the sexual behaviour of people, especially women.
Realising that, it makes sense why the Christian fundies do not push for better sex-ed and free contraception but focus on stopping abortion only- not on prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

Abstinence-only sex education should be seen as child abuse. Children have the right to be informed about their own body, about the changes they undergo and the feelings that come with it. I find it unacceptable that some schools, religious or not, teach abstinence-only! There should also be proper discussion about homosexuality so that teens who are discovering they have homosexual tentencies don't have to fear their own desires.

Abstinence-only ed is a waste time and money; it has been shown not to work. It has no greater success rate than no sex-ed at all.

It is certainly the case that religious fundamentalists are more concerned about controlling women's sexual behaviour than the welfare of babies and children. After all, lesbians are women least likely to have an abortion and many move heaven and earth to have children. But the religious zealots hate lesbians as much as they hate women who dare to control their own fertility. Incidentally, they also hate women who refuse sex with their husbands - but usually not the other way around.

In terms of the best sex education program, we have to look at outcomes. Do we want as few abortions as possible and children to be okay with homosexuality? Then consider the Netherlands. Do we want the opposite? Then go for programs run in the parts of the US. Or maybe zero tolerance for abortion, homosexuality and sex outside marriage? Then Saudi Arabia has the best program.

The religious right both object to sex education and oppose abortion.

They thus cause most of the misery and then have the audacity to point at the no of abortions and say it must be stopped. It is the worst case of double standards I have ever seen.

I can also see more of the religious right withdrawing their kids from government schools and going to private schools on the spurious notion that its the only place where they can be taught "values" whatever that nebulous term is supposed to mean.

Currently, as has been the case for years in government schools, to receive the sx education, parental consent must be received and notification is provided to all parents, this could be simply described as an opt-in system.

We should implement a default opt-out system, without a notification obligation, in order to reduce administrative burden upon schools and increase participation. There should also be, and in some states govt. schools are moving in this direction already, more scientific-based, evidence-based comprehensive sx education.

Meanwhile, could we also reduce private school funds annually by 25 per cent over four years, and then after four years, implement a total cessation of private school funding. All money saved should be redirected to government schools.

Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family

Please stick to the subject. Your paucity of understanding of independent schools is overshadowed only by your irrational linking of the topics.

My kids are at private schools where sex ed is compulsory, and special dispensation is required to remove the kids, as it is considered an important part of their education. I gather this is the same for most private schools with the exception of the Catholic.

Thus your comment about reducing private school funding is not only irrelevant but incorrect.

ISBT......,
AS Shadow Minister said private school funding has nothing to do with this discussion. He also said his kids school has an opt-out system of sex ed and that should please you. You mentioned'values'. To me that includes such things as honesty, intregrity, responsibility, showing respect for others, etc. and I rate these matters highly in a childs education. Get around malls after school and see just how much respect kids show others. It has to be taught and unfortunately our politicians set a bad example.

Jenny and others,
If I recall correctly, the big argument for beginning sex ed in schools was that there were unwanted pregnancies because kids were niave and needed to be taught about sex and reproduction. So what has gone wrong? There is still girls getting pregnant, SDI and abortions. Are they not taught anything at school? Getting the kids attention and attendance should not be a problem.

There was discussion on OLO recently about girls, of 14, getting the pill from a GP, after consultation with school nurse, without parents consent or even being informed. I was told that many kids cannot speak to their parents about sex. Seeing that parents are responsible for the kids until 18, should not one of the first lessons given to kids be on how to talk to their parents and raise the subject.

It seems there are a whole heap of subjects which are not being taught properly. There is currently controversy about how English is taught. Employers always complain about the standard of maths and now something a fundamental as sex ed. I've already mentioned respect and manners. Just what in hell are kids taught?

Actually, there should not be a possibility to opt-out of sex education at all if we're serious about reducing unplanned pregnancies and STIs.
Sex education in Australia needs to be totally reformed; it should not be a treated as an optional little side dish, but should be one of the ingredients of the main dish.

Sex education should be a comprehensive program incorporated in relevant subjects such as science/biology, Living skills, Personal Development, Health and Physical Education, Social studies, politics, legal studies, HSIE (Human Studies In the Environment, art etc.

Sex is part of life and people have to be realistic about teenagers and sex.

I fully agree that society needs to be realistic about teenagers and sexual activity... in fact, perhaps it is the active teenager that sooner works out the part that sex plays in life, and goes on to more quickly form a solid life partnership...

However, in offering indepth sex education, the concept of life partnering, which is theoretically offered through sexual experience and pregnancy, should not be abandoned as an ideal lifepath.

Our increasingly fragmented society needs a sexual education that looks at the social benefits of commitment, as well as the social risks of single motherhood and, on the flip side, infertility caused by delaying birth.

Scientific studies repeatedly show that marriages are more likely to be lifelong, and reportedly happy, when both partners have somewhat limited sexual experiences with outsiders.

Conversely, the higher the number of partners and relationships, the lower the likelihood of permanent and happy marriage.

However, educators seem reluctant to embrace these particular aspects of the studies they otherwise champion. There remains in our current culture a deeply steeped suspicion of marriage as being, in itself, inherently 'values-laden', or, perhaps, a trap.

This can profoundly disadvantage our girls, who still seem more likely to be interested in sexual experience within marriage, or ending in marriage.

This sustained interest may be due to cultural inputs - or, possibly, because women have a biological need to create a sexual environment where pregnancy is catered for, in the event that it occurs.

Personally, I think the latter, as the risk of pregnancy usually remains uppermost in the minds of women who are regularly sexually active, particularly within relationship.

An acceptance of this kind of 'values education' in sex education, where the biological needs of women are discussed not just in terms of pregnancy prevention, but in terms of true, in-depth family planning, would really necessitate a complete change of culture amongst not just our sex educators, but in general society as well.

Sensible exchange of views, here.

"possibly, because women have a biological need to create a sexual environment where pregnancy is catered for, in the event that it occurs. - - - - particularly within relationship.

An acceptance of this kind of 'values education' - - - - -in terms of true, in-depth family planning, would really necessitate a complete change of culture amongst not just our sex educators, but in general society as well."
Well said.
Adolescents grow physically, with overpowering sensations and desires, long before they mature emotionally and intellectually to assume the responsibilities of satisfying their sexual impulses.
The entertainment industry (movies, some magazines etc) encourage society to underestimate women's need for emotional security when they become potential child-bearers. Too few young men are even aware of it.
Perhaps the media could have a beneficial influence if it presented more often the advantages of considerate, caring lives. And less provocative, stimulating titillating