This article proposes that there be more sex education in schools, but how much should occur within the family?

Not mentioned (or perhaps the term “family” is now too uncomfortable to talk about, and education systems do not like to talk about “family” anymore).

Nor is it mentioned as to “why” adolescents are undertaking sex at a younger age? Is this because their world now has sex thrown at them from every angle, and they become curious?

Also how much of this sex has romance attached, or are the young carrying out sex like some type of expected or mechanical act.

Not mentioned either, but would be relevant.

In response to timkins; a great deal of sex education should occur within a family, however configured. And no, I dont think the concept of family is no longer mentioned in schools.

And as to why do young peole engage in sex mechanically or otherwise; I would suggest because it is there. Just like it always has been. Restrictions on sexual activity have always been somewhat arbitrary, a bit like road rules.

Inkeemagaee,

I think that there are more questions unanswered than answered in this article. The author mentions that the avg age of sexual intercourse has fallen from 19 to 16, but where will this stop? 13..10..7 ?

Most of these articles on sex education overlook the fact that sex is being sold through the media. Sex is now highly commercialised, and being targeted at people of a young age.

From the article “Buying into sexy: the sexing up of Tweens” at …http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/money/sexy/index.html

“When you were nine, what did you want? A Barbie doll? A train set?
These days, young boys and girls are hungry for something else: padded bras and flirting tips, video games with bikini-clad babes and music videos that feature plenty of sexual innuendo. “

The same is happening in Australia, with very young girls modelling clothes for much older women. Sex is being sold extensively through teenage magazines, as a part of fashion and image, and we have magazines such as “Girlfriend” with articles from “Are you ready for Romance” to “Are you ready for Sex”

http://www.girlfriend.com.au/display.cfm?ObjectID=3FA0831F-456A-4B74-8C08C95121A761E0

Some of these web sites such as “Girlfriend” are now some of the most popular web sites for young people in the country, but I doubt whether any sex education program will be all that effective with such an onslaught from such media to commercialise and exploit sex.

Most of this commercialisation of sex and young people is coming from women’s media (where most of the staff are female), but unfortunately I don’t hear of any government-funded women’s organisation opposing it.

Unfortunately, males opposing it will of course be labelled misogynistic, homophobic, fundamentalist, ignorant, sex obbessed, GBs etc,etc,etc.

Problem that.

The Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society - this says it all. The priorities are, excuse the term, arse-about!

If we, as a society, set guidelines (regardless if everyone follows them) for family life we have a chance of getting people to exercise a healthy reception or outright rejection of the proposition.

If we just say 'sex will happen' and as a society ignore shaping or restricting behaviour in society then, as has been stated, forget red lights & 'Stop' signs - put that pedal to the floor baby!

The outcome is the same. Why regulate driving more than sex? Neither is safe if we abandon reasonable guidelines and outcomes.

I thought this article was the most coherent, informed and lucid on the topic so far and applaud the author. Sex education should be taught in the home - that's a given - but the quality of that sex ed will vary from household to household. I conducted my own survey and most respondents agreed that sex education is poor and should be improved. Open communication with parents tends to DECREASE at the time of puberty, so expert advice given in school would be a safeguard. Reality Check, the real world is as it is. Some things have changed in modern society - sure, but some things have been a constant through the ages. Some kids will fool around, some won't. The ones that don't, usually have a sense of morality that is taught to them at home - or they make their own mind up about morality and abstain anyway. The variables are too numerous. Quality sex education would cover morality and emotions, not just the nuts and bolts of sex. It makes sense. Try not to freak out so much.

Sex education should be taught in the home? I question that given that we usually don't teach maths, politics or ancient history in the home but invest money in educational institutions in order that children are taught appropriately. And to a consistent standard (hopefully the best).

Now I know people don't get excited over the teaching of maths compared to sex education but the point is that maths teaching, left in the hands of even the most well meaning parents, would be unlikely to achieve uniform and suitable outcomes.

I certainly don't all the answers on this one but if we are aiming for comprehensive sex education with the most up to date information and research, then I think it has to be primarily the education system's responsibility here.

Me thinks Timkins doth protest too much, too much worrying about womens' and teenagers sexuality, and about controlling their behaviour.

Teenagers were also having sex at 16 when I was young and thats over 30 years ago. The implication that there is no love involved has no basis in reality, for those of us with teenage children we know that they often think that it is everlasting love mind you a lot of adults think that as well even if it does not eventually work out. The assumption that teenagers go through sex like automatons is ignorant. Feelings generally run amok at that stage, the best that caring parents can do is make sure they are safe and be there to sooth hurt feelings if it comes to an end.

Given the amount of tutoring and the expense/sacrifice a lot of parents go to make this happen (so kids get into Uni science / medicine even though they can't write) we don't have a uniform outcome on this front, despite syllabi etc. Some children have a natural bent to certain subjects (no pun intended re sexuality.)

Comprehensive sex education "with the most up to date information and research" appears to be set in a moral vacuum as seen by academic values neutral (but not bias free) scientific puritan articles on this website.

Does this mean that we may well have a lot of students that are good at (safe) sex, but, amoral (cf immoral) and don't appropriately value what they are doing.

What is the current TER for student recreational sex degrees anyway...and is their a families major open to students?

I would aim to remove sex education from what some would describe as "morality" (but in reality "ideology") as much as possible. The infection of ideology into education is a feature of totalitarian regimes. We've even seen totalitarian fundamentalists in the US attempting to infect science with their bizarre views of our planet's origins and biology (quaintly known as "creationism").

Obviously it may not be possible to totally remove sex education from ideology anymore than history or science. Nonetheless, I think it is worth the effort.

A lucid and realistic article that clearly demonstrates the need for better quality, universal sex education to be delivered via the school curriculum. As Anne Mitchell indicates, studies indicate that young people are engaging in sexual activities at a generally younger mean age than at previous periods in our social history, and that this seems to be a global phenomenon. Whether or not this is an undesirable trend is at one level irrelevant to the topic: kids are having sex earlier and will therefore reap the consequences. As a parent, I would much rather my kids approach the prospect of sexual relations from an informed perspective, including some sense of the social, moral and ideological contexts in which sex occurs. And I would be comforted to know that this knowledge was being imparted in a controlled and dispassionate way - like in a classroom.

As a divorced parent with 1/3 custody of my two youngest kids, I'm pleased that my kids can acquire a broader view of sex and sexuality than either I or their mother could give them. Unfortunately, their mother still labours (mostly subconsciously) under a Catholic socialisation, such that open discussions about sex are uncomfortable for her and are generally restricted to anatomical issues. While my communication with my teenage son is somewhat easier in this regard, he's only with me 1/3 of the time - and I'm not at all sure that I would be comfortable having similarly intimate conversations with my daughter when the time comes. I can only imagine the kinds of miscommunication and disinformation that occur in families that practise fundamentalist religions or are otherwise sexually repressed - both Christian and non-Christian.

Knowledge is power, and kids need to be equipped to deal with important issues like sexuality from a perspective that is informed, realistic and oriented towards their own well being.

Morgan

Lititia,
Is what you say about me or teenagers true is it? Could you please supply specific, non-anecdotal evidence.

As well as not mentioning families, the author did not mention a certain person who once ran a very good sex education program, which has subsequently been shown to reduce such things as teenage pregnancy, starting from a factor of 2 and going up to a factor of 8.

See http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030515-000003.html

These research findings have been repeated in many other studies also, and I would think the author knows it.

And as well as reducing the chances of teenage pregnancy, this person also reduced the chances of teenage drug taking, STD’s, poor school performance and a whole range of other potential teenage problems, and they did it for free without costing the taxpayer anything.

However you can’t mention that person much anymore, as it produces too much negative reaction, (particularly in OLO), and they are becoming fewer in number within families, (is it still acceptable to mention this word?), with their roles now being taken over by the state. Although a state run sex education program will not stay up waiting for a 16 yr old son or daughter to arrive home sober and on time.

Unfortunately it is quite probable, that even this person cannot adequately counteract current teenage media, and a review of this media (eg magazines, movies, music etc) does show that the majority of it is being targeting towards teenage or preteen girls, and does use sex as a major selling point (thereby artificially encouraging it) like never before in the past, and the majority of it is coming from women. (eg everything from “Girlfriend” to “Brittany Spears”)

Unfortunately if males say something about this, then they are usually labelled misogynists, ignorant, GB’s etc, or it is inferred that they are trying to take away the rights of women.

So men are being forced out of this issue, like so many other issues to do with parenting, and now it is basically up to women, with their media, state run programs, and complete knowledge of everything.

When people talk about morality, whose morality are they talking about? Why is it people who are outspoken about their own morals are so hell-bent on imposing them on the rest of us?
I have an open relationship with my teenage daughter precisely because I do not attempt to impose my own values and morals on her. I talk about my own views and beliefs and listen - with respect- when she tells me hers. I do not always agree, she is very vehement and black and white and adolescent, but her values and beliefs- morality, if you must- will mean much more to her if she is allowed to work it out for herself. I also believe I have much more influence on her behaviour by not laying down the law.
If you want to have a good relationship with your kids, you must recognise that they will change you at least as much as you change them. If you refuse to change, you risk losing your kids and losing any influence over their behaviour. Many more rigid parents I know have a fantasy relationships with their kids. The kids tell them what they want to hear, and then go out and do the opposite. Who is being protected here? Ann is quite right, the nuts and bolts of sex (like the nuts and bolts of digestion) should be taught at school, morality at home.

From the article
"There is no turning back the clock on adolescent sexual behaviour"

I'm sorry, but this is a joke. As it is part of her conclusion, I would have to say that her whole philosophy underlying the point of her article is wrong.

As if you cannot improve the level of self-control that adolescents have. What bigotry.

As a person who has previously taught sex education, and who currently works with children and yp, i agree with Anne's comments. I also agree that the family is the ideal starting point for such education, but the reality is that many parents, for a variety of reasons, are reluctant to discuss the facts, feelings, decision-making processes and their values related to sex. It might also be worthwhile clarifying that comprehensive sex education should discuss moral decision-making and assist yp to generate their own moral position, as well as helping them to identify unsafe sexual situations, and the impact of peer and societal pressure, and not just the mechanics of sex. When i was doing this work it was patently obvious that some YP were getting excellent and well-rounded information at home, and others were completely clueless. This is the benefit of sex ed in schools - it captures those YP who are getting incorrect information or none at all. I also believe that it could be beneficial to teach YP how to critically analyse and filter the information they recieve from the media and other sources as a way of countering the confusing messages about sex. This could be done either as a component of sex ed or more generally.
In relation to the declining age of first intercourse, there are some obvious concerns about why this occurring, but maybe it is worth remembering that it is only quite recently (the last 100 years or so) that the age went up, also in response to a change in societal values. YP have always had sex. What is important is that they do it safely, when they are ready and according to their own moral compass.

Becla
You have said that sex education should occur in the family, and I agree, but families are not in very good shape in our society. This you would probably know already as a teacher, as you would likely see the affects on children. I know of a teacher who routinely takes breakfast to school, so she can feed breakfast to the children in the class.

Studies would show that there are some family types where the children are more likely to do better than children from other family types.

This is now a relevant point. Education systems and social scientists want to have a standardised, but optimum sex education system, but these same people have been very quite about those families that are not optimum by any means, and those families more often have children that are overly promiscuous, lack self-esteem, take drugs more frequently, do poorly in school work etc.

I can remember reading about the situation in the US, where it was estimated that for every $1,000 spent trying to fix social problems resulting from decimated families, only $1 was spent on trying to strengthen families. Most of the money spent on the programs (ie programs to reduce child delinquency, programs to try halt teenage drug taking, programs to reduce teenage pregnancy, programs to reduce runaway children etc) were latter found to be ineffective, because what the children lacked the most was parents and a stable family.

I think Australia will be following the same pattern, a state run education program for this, another for that, a mentoring system for this, another for that, but it is all artificial, expensive, and not greatly effective anyway.

So overall, I think that many of these state run social education programs could be just a repetition of what is occurring in the U

It seems that the average age for starting to have sex has gone down since sex education and sexual liberation in the 1960s.

Does anyone have any hard statistics which shows this and if so won't more sex education lower the age even more.

Children may be physically able to drive when they are 12 (just visit a farm) but are we going to start driver education at 12 years of age as well

t.u.s.

In Victorian England the age of consent for girls was 13. Books by the likes of Cyril Pearl or any number of credible historians of that era recount the prevalence of prostitution and paedophilia combined with an ignorance about sex and sexuality.

The Victorian era was, of course, a time when learning about sex was confined to the "better classes". The ignorant masses weren't supposed to know. But that wasn't exactly good for society.

I think there's a lot of misconceptions when it comes to sex and the age of consent throughout history. I'll try not to make my understanding too long winded....

For most of European history people lived in villages. Travel was long, dangerous and due to internal passports, legally difficult. The vast majority of people were subsistence farmers which meant the vast majority of people only traveled within say, a 50-100km radius their entire lives.

There was no such thing as social mobility. If your father was a farmer then you would be a farmer, your father a farrer, you a farrer etc. There was no universal education, only some church schools and individual tutors for children of the rich. You didn't need them anyway. Society changed at a glacial pace. You're father or mother would be able to predict pretty much exactly how your entire life would proceed. In all probability it would be cut short by pestilence or famine anyway.

In the context of this society you were an adult at the age of 14 or 15. This meant sex for 14 or 15y/o would have been completely acceptable.

Modern society is much more complex. It takes 12 years of education just to teach children how to function in society (and many more for some). Consequently childhood is getting longer and longer. Childhood itself was only 'invented' a couple of hundred years ago. Adolescence is a much newer invention probably only about 50 years old.

So to those people who talk about child abuse in the past: how could you abuse a child if childhood didn't exist? How could you call someone a child when they had already been earning their living for years, were as well educated as their parents and would rest in the certainty that their ‘station’ in life would not change?

Continues next post....

continued from last post....

The problem is today’s complex society is putting us out of synch with biology. We wonder why adolescents have raging hormones at 16, then 20 years later women need IVF because of fertility problems. The problem is nature gave us raging hormones at 16 because that's when we're suppose to reproduce.

I guess my hope is that a better understanding of history would mean less moral panic about underage sex and the age of consent and a little more reason.

Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, March 23, 2005 8:01:26 AM

"In Victorian England the age of consent for girls was 13. Books by the likes of Cyril Pearl or any number of credible historians of that era recount the prevalence of prostitution and paedophilia combined with an ignorance about sex and sexuality. The Victorian era was, of course, a time when learning about sex was confined to the "better classes". The ignorant masses weren't supposed to know. But that wasn't exactly good for society."

Paedophilia was a mass phenomena in Victorian London. It was not illegal so it quickly became commercialized and widespread. Similarly as the eastern bloc collapsed, child pornography exploded as a mechanism for obtaining hard currency. As the US govt. arm-twisted varying degrees of moral sanity, various nations developed or left loop-holes.

Child pornography featuring 14 year old 'actors' having sex without adults (participating on film) was the next step etc. The average child pornographer was simply a businessman thriving in what had become a sea of utra-capitalism. The people making cookery programmes in Budapest etc. also made child pornography. No crisis of conscience being apparent.

Internet content providers in more restricted economic markets could label the same 'loop-hole' child pornography as 18 and invariably get away with it. The wicked people usually live right next door to 'moral' people. They drive the same cars, drink the same beer, they look the same. Moral people do not actively sell morality. Paedophiles, pimps, child pornographers are however effectively a 'special interest' lobby.

They exploit circumstance to leverage advantage. Men, lawyers, accountants, with their secretaries taking notes, would meet to discuss how to sell and make child pornography. It was legal so they just did it. They did not view themselves as criminals, they felt they were escaping the Soviet era and discovering 'freedom'.

"It seems that the average age for starting to have sex has gone down since sex education and sexual liberation in the 1960s. Does anyone have any hard statistics which shows this and if so won't more sex education lower the age even more. Children may be physically able to drive when they are 12 (just visit a farm) but are we going to start driver education at 12 years of age as well"

Educating boys and girls in gender specific schools has a marked effect on limiting unwanted sexual behaviours. Children are under enormous pressure (in Europe and the USA) to have sex.

Sexual misconduct at mixed schools is far more widespread than single sex schools. Most sexual assaults in mixed schools are swept under the carpet or ignored or not reported.

Being sexually assaulted 'is part of growing up' these days. It is difficult to prosecute pupuls for sexual assault etc. when the people in charge are also doing it.

In parts of Europe it is illegal to terminate paedophile teachers. Similarly child pornography and the medical profession, nursing etc. are other difficult areas to resolve.

Cadiz, I'd love to hear your evidence for this.
Anecdotal evidence tells me precisely the opposite. When you sit with guys in class day in and day out you are far less likely to want to have sex with them, than if they are the forbidden fruit kept mysterious, distant and therefore very attractive.
Familiarity breeds contempt, or hadn't you heard?
After all, the number of kids in single sex schools now (particularly girls) is much higher than it was in the 70s, when I was at achool, and apparently underage sex is going up. How do you reconcile these two things?
My daughters, both at a co-ed state high school, are quite startled by some of the behaviour of some of their single sex, private school friends.

Anne,

You are the one who needs to take a reality check. Look at what your liberal sex education has achieved: huge increases in STIs, huge increase in infertility, unwanted pregnancies which make it difficult for girls to complete education, increased abortions and the resulting post-abortion trauma, increased family and marriage break-down etc etc.

Liberal sex education has had its turn and has been found wanting. Valueless and clueless sex educators have been hammering kids with their values free anything-goes sexual fantasies for at least 15 years now and look where it has got us. It has made things an order of magnitude worse and it will take several generations to recover.

Not surprising really. What would a lesbian who was once married and is now divorced, know about real, lasting intimate relationships? Answer: Stuff all.

Schools are highly sexualized places. The average male teenager will try his luck out on any girl whether he likes her or not.

When condoms are provided by nurses to 11 and 12 year olds (in Britain) they do not usually use them on older girls.

Vulnerable girls are leveraged to have sex by boys who are empowered by school issued condoms.

Sexual abuse and harassment are a routine fact of life in British schools. Some are more notorious than others.

Many school boys develop a taste for downloading child pornography at their schools. I suspect the same phenomena is common to New Zealand and Australia.

The age of consent was raised because men were using children for sex. It was that simple.

Virginity auctions were common in London and for that matter are still encountered today.

The sexual abuse of children by adults is not something that hides in the shadows, it has public advocacy.

There are people trying to turn the clock back to the heyday of openly organized paedophilia.

The age of consent laws are supposed to have a buffer of two or three years, where is the buffer if the age is 12 or 11?

In Canada fifty year old men book into hotels with 14 year old boys for anal sex sessions. Where is the margin for safety?

In Canada NAMBLA has rather more political influence with the Liberal Party than UNICEF.