How did you receive your clearly superior sex education, Timkins/HRS?

CJ,
perhaps he learned his lessons from a dominatrix.

HRS,
don’t let the word “gory” scare you; if sex education is to be effective it needs to be realistic, which sometimes means unpleasant.
Abortion and STIs ARE unpleasant and gory details need to be discussed, why lie or cover up reality?
Sex Ed is quite age appropriate. Don't worry, an 11 or 12-year-old child won’t get to watch an abortion procedure or birth on video or go to an abortion clinic on excursion. These are 14-15+ subjects.

Topics I remember were:
Anatomy/physiology/biology aspects.
Birth control methods, the usage and where to get it. How to talk to the doctor, what you should ask.
Pathology- learning all about STIs and prevention.

Abstinence is discussed, too, but also how to have sex without intercourse.

Much of the material was about social/sexual behaviour, real life situations and relationships and was presented through discussions, film, and role-playing/acting.
There were excursions, too- to hospitals or abortion clinics.
And we had guest speakers- women or couples who decided on abortion, or the ones who decided to adopt out or keep the child.

It’s all very down-to-earth and realistic.
For example, teenagers of around 15 start to go out to parties, and it’s possible that they experiment with drugs e.g. alcohol and sex.
This side of the program is about anticipating what teenagers can get up to and discussing the choices they have in all kinds of different situations.
It teaches them about anticipating and minimising their own risk and that of their close friends.
Sex education should not just focus on telling teenagers to just ‘don’t do it’. Because teenagers don’t work like that.
We have to anticipate that it’s a real possibility that teens DO experiment with these things.

Pupils are not ‘tested’ about what they got out of the discussions- one just participates or listens.
The real test, however, is life itself.
And with one of the lowest abortion rates and teen pregnancies in the world, I think people generally must’ve passed.

Stuart Walker – not sure if you are an agent-provocateur or just have a lend of us.

One thing, you made me laugh

because if I thought you were serious, you must be so depressed, it is pushing you close to suicidal.

HRS more fool you for thinking it was a seriously intended post.

Celivia, I see you have the same take on SW as I

I find it interesting, sex education is, I believe, very important.

The hard part – how do you explain it without seeming to encourage it?

Re “Pupils are not ‘tested’ about what they got out of the discussions- one just participates or listens.”

Exactly

and there is no ‘practical’ exam either : - )

Celivia,
I think if someone showed “gory details” of anything to young children, then that person would quickly find themselves on some type of child abuse charge.

This so called “sex education” seems more like a means or an excuse for feminists to get into schools, and quite probably a waste of taxpayer money that could be better spent elsewhere. The US spent nearly $1 billion on a whole range of sex education programs in schools in 10 years, and the rate of teenage pregnancy is now increasing at the end of that period.

Universities are now so heavily compromised and feminist that they have become a waste of space and taxpayer money regards reducing the rate of abortion, (and becoming a waste of space and taxpayer money regards most other things also), but if pressure is placed on the actual abortion clinics to reduce the abortion rate (or they lose their license to operate) then I am sure that the abortion clinics will take much more interest in reducing the abortion rate, and the abortion rates would decline.

There’s a good article about sex education in The Guardian today. See: http://education.guardian.co.uk/sexeducation/story/0,,2291616,00.html

Sex education does not encourage kids to go forth and fornicate. Teenage children are biologically programmed to be obsessed with sex, and our lot also live in a sex-saturated culture, so good sex education should teach children how to say “no” to sex and be responsible for their own sexuality. It teaches children that real desire differs from machismo or insecurity or the need to please. It teaches them to question the sexual battering they get from culture.

HRS, I find your arguments odd. Firstly, why should Australian women be having fewer abortions? We should certainly have fewer unwanted pregnancies, but surely we need as many abortions as there are unwanted pregnancies — no more, no less. Unwanted pregnancies always occur, because, while contraception may be reliable, people are not. Especially not with sex on the brain.

You appear to agree with feminists that we need to develop better, safer, more reliable contraception. This will decrease the unwanted pregnancy — and hence abortion — rate. Most abortion clinics, such as Marie Stopes — which is a non-profit organisation — provide cheap, reliable contraception. You also agree with feminists that no one should ever feel pressured to have, or to not have, an abortion.

Abortion clinics do not sell a marketable product — i.e., no one tries to get pregnant in order to have an abortion. They do not “promote” abortion, they provide it. Women and couples contact abortion clinics AFTER they get pregnant. Most abortion clinics also provide contraception, of course, but preventing pregnancy needs to start earlier. High school is the best place to teach kids about contraception. Studies show 14 is the optimum age.

Pregnancy rates in the US are increasing because the religious right has taken over sex education and pushed the rational, scientific and empathetic out. The result — abstinence-only sex education — does not affect teenagers’ decisions about having sex, but it does mean they use less contraception. Hence the increased pregnancy rates.

See: http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/comment/story/0,,1214047,00.html

Veronika,
The US government spent 12 times more money on promoting contraception and safe-sex education than it spent on abstinence sex education, and yet the rate of teenage pregnancy increased.

There is an extremely good correlation between teenage pregnancy and the high rates of fatherless children in the US. A teenage girl is about 7 times more likely to become pregnant if she has been removed from her father. Having the father in the house is by far the best way of reducing the chances of a teenage daughter becoming pregnant.

Father ~~ What do you want?
Young Stud ~~ Can I see your daughter?
Father ~~ Why?

Having the father in the house is 7 times more effective than any sex education class or contraceptive ever developed for reducing teenage pregnancy, but it is something no feminist has ever mentioned to my knowledge, and something university academics will only mention occasionally.

Feminists and university academics are no friend of teenage daughters.

Education is not a very reliable way of reducing risks. The most reliable and foolproof way of reducing a physical risk is to have a purposely built physical gap or physical barrier placed between the person and the risk. Contact anyone in the safety area for verification of that.

Abortion clinics have done minimal towards reducing the abortion rate, and Marie Stopes is not a completely non-profit organisation, as the doctors, nurses, anesthetists etc are being paid, and most of that pay comes from the taxpayer’s pocket.

The record keeping and general research being carried out into abortion is probably the worst of any medical research being carried out in Australia, and yet abortion is one of the most common operations being performed.

I think this clearly shows how much interest abortion clinics actually have in reducing the abortion rate, or rate of unwanted pregnancy.