to think sex ed encourages earlier sex?

[Sleepysand]

Not saying get rid of it, but seems to me a big part of me hanging on til I was 20 was a result of fear, not of pregnancy, but just the unknown. I had no idea what a man's bits looked like, and trust me, in my imagination they were scary (for some reason I thought the testicles were a clamp that grabbed you!)

Not sure that level of ignorance was great, but does familiarity breed more pressure on girls?

I think that the only way to combat the myths of porn sex is to talk about it, quite openly.

To be fair Missy, none of the girls I knew were trying to persuade their boyfriends to have sex at 15! Happened to us all from the boys though!

Nooka, the openness in those countries was at home. Slag off my sex ed if you like for cheap scores, I have seen a heck of a lot more of it than most.

I agree porn is insidious, but the fall in age predates that and actually most teen boys always accessed it.

Bogeyface, 17 is a normal age, and accidents were more common then, for lots of reasons.

Viatutu, I am sorry fir for your experience but I doubt anything in sex ed programmes would have prevented it. In fact I estimate that around 1 in 20 students in ks4 has been sexually assaulted - not meaning had sex under age but actual non consensual, incestuous or paedophiliac acts - and those are just the ones we know about. Sex ed programmes are not stopping that from happening.

I would like all porn to disappear overnight but as thats not going to happen then yes, it needs to be discussed frankly and openly. Educate. Knowledge is power.

Bogey I would say it was probably in equal measure in my school tbh.

Er no, 17 was not normal then! It was the equivalent of being 14 now!

My grandma hadnt even been sure that she was having sex, not sure my grandad did either tbh from what she said (my grandma told me). And she was shocked because she genuinely didnt think that you could get pregnant before you were married, she didnt know that it was sex that caused it, not marriage. She was horrified when her mum explained it to her (3 months after she got pregnant) :(

That is what no sex ed does for you.

Bogey, that is a level of ignorance noone is likely to achieve now. And not what I am suggesting, if you read my posts.

Not sure why you think 17 is 14 now, unless you only focus on when periods start. Most girls were married before 21 then. Emotional maturity is what it always was.

Where did you get 1 in 20 from? I thought it was more like 1 in 5 girls are sexually asked by 18. And knowing that girls have the knowledge and the language to complain protects them.

Plus if you were a teen now and wanted to know something you could just type it into google and find an answer. Its less likely to be a healthy and considered one though.

Having sex outside marriage at 17 was an appalling thing, having sex outside marriage at all was bad, but at her age it was far worse. Girls were put into institutions for having sex outside marriage at her age. Do you know what would have happened to her if my grandad hadnt married her? To suggest that what they did was "normal" in regards to the social expectations of the time is ridiculous!

I told her story to illustrate what true ignorance of sex can lead to, and thanks to religion some kids really ARE growing up with that level of ignorance in this country, right now.

I actually agree with the OP to a certain point. I was a 'late starter' mainly through fear of the unknown.

Overall though, ignorance is dangerous. I think kids need the facts and less crap (porn).

And you can't deconstruct crap (porn) without confronting it.

I didn't think the testicle clamp thing til I was 20, by 16 and A level biology I had worked it out.

Okay, I'm not being mean, but...16? You thought that testicles were clamps that grabbed you until you were 16?

I think you're overlooking a few things here. One is the obvious fact that until relatively recently in history, families have shared rooms and beds and it was fairly normal for children to be exposed to the adults having sex - now that's considered sexual abuse. Did the age of first sexual experience go up or down when families more typically spread their dwellings out?

Another thing is that there is a difference between reported and actual sexual acts. Rape, for example, has gone down massively in the past decade. But reported instances of rape have gone up; because more people recognised it as being rape, there was more cultural encouragement to report, etc. So Sex Ed hasn't stopped the non consensual acts, sure, but it might well have reduced them, and those sorts of statistics take a while to filter through.

True unfortunately.

Self confidence, or the lack of it and feeling wanted/loved play a big part in consensual sex. There are generations of emotionally fucked up people out there, who are not confident, who lack self confidence, and self worth. So the first person comes along who is a using shit, gives it all the chat, lays on the bogus emotions and they have sex. They quickly get dumped feel even worse and the next person who comes along and the process is repeated. Although not all the time with consent.

For years I worked with youngsters who were having underage sex, going into school and youth centres talking to groups. At first it was all a big joke, and they were coming out with all the stereotypical nonsense that gets thrown around as to why they were having underage sex. But as time progressed, and the trust was established, they became more open and it was all the emotional side of things. The family lifestyle. The wanting to feel wanted and valued. Confidence and esteem issues. Yes a tiny amount of peer pressure, and an even smaller amount because the sex ed in school made it sound interesting.. Although most had had sex by the time they had sex ed in school.

So in a way sex ed is the problem, because sex ed should also be covering the emotional sides of things. Feelings. It's ok to say no. To work with youngsters to improve their self esteem, to help them realise they are someone worth while. To help the realise that they are worthy of more than a quick fuck. The mechanics of it simply is not enough. This has to come from school, because sometimes family life just isn't dealing with the issues.

They locked up adulterous women, of all ages, but I fail to see the relevance of that. Your grandma thought what she was doing was safe, as a result of an ignorance impossible now unless you live in a bubble. Marriage at 17 was normal. Shotgun weddings were normal. The average gestation of a first child in my mum's family is 6 months pre-1930. But not after that. With no school sex ed. Anecdotes do not help.

You cannot argue away that teenage pregnancy is not being slowed or stopped by sex ed. It is increasing. All kinds of pressures are making girls think sex at 13 is normal and safe.

The 1 in 20 is a conservative estimate among boys and girls, based on my own experience as a pastoral head. I am counting only sexual contact itself if non-consensual, not indecent exposure. Boys are about half as frequently assaulted ime as girls and most of those were assaulted by men.

Sleepysand, you said that your sons said their sex ed was clinical, and that it was very similar to that you yourself delivered. Sex ed that is not about relationships and feelings but just the 'facts of reproduction' is in my opinion poor quality, and probably achieves very little. Covering issues like self esteem, consent and sexual bullying (our school also covered homophobia which I thought very good) on the other hand is likely might be really helpful, and I think being delivered in peer groups works very well too, as it can set new norms.

Countries like Holland are not just generally more open about sex, they provide earlier and better sex education (and were models for changing the UK curriculum) and the evidence is that this works.

sleepySand Children are receiving some form of sex ed from a very early age.

My DD (age 5) is learning about sexuality when she sees bloody pop tarts stars flashing their knickers.

Maybe if I am too nervous/ignorant to give her any productive guidance and the schools do away with sex ed completely she'll grow up to have a healthy attitude towards her body and a totally normal view of sex from the education she will then received from Rhianna & co.?

Ok, but your point about teenage pregnancy..

You cannot argue away that teenage pregnancy is not being slowed or stopped by sex ed

And you cant argue that sex ed is causing it! Social attitudes, TV, Film and the internet are the problem. Not informing young people of the facts, facts that they could get from the internet alongside alot of myths, lies and porn.

I know what I would rather my children had thanks!

Actually, all of the above and the fact that there is no fear in being a teen mum in the UK. That was the biggest factor in low teen pregnancy rates pre mid 80's. It was realised that taking young pregnant women, locking them away and forcibly removing their babies into adoption wasnt such a great idea.

We have become supportive of those who find themselves becoming parents in less than ideal circumstances, and that is no bad thing if the alternative is fear of punishment and social ostrication.

We deal with homophobia and self esteem separately. But I do not think my, or my sons', experience of sex ed is unusual. I liked ihearnoises view, and what I would say is that teachers are the wrong people to deliver sex ed of that sort - to make that work, like that, you need time teachers do not have, and a specialised relationship - it would be impossible to maintain that level of intimacy in a school setting.

I have put my finger on what it was I felt about sex - awe. A sense that it was huge, significant, and quite scary. I think that sex ed takes that away, and does not replace it with a balancing force.

I think modern culture takes the idea away that sex is huge, significant and scary.

Sex is EVERYWHERE. It is rammed down throats whether you want it to be or not and I don't mean via education.

Music lyrics. Music videos. Magazines. Billboard ads. Newspapers. Clothing. Toys.

I went to a private girls school in the United States. At fourteen (third form/year 10 for the UK), my year was required to watch a Lamaze film showing natural childbirth as well as being given realistic information on contraception and abortion. Keeping a gymslip baby was not presented as an option. It was clearly unacceptable. Adoption was not discussed either.

None of my year had children while in high school or at university. Very few from other years did either, excepting a few girls on scholarship who had never fitted in.
The movie showed clearly the consequences of sex, and scared many of us into waiting. I feel all twelve year olds should see that film.

I still feel only negative aspects of having a baby as a lone parent should be presented by school sex education. Pregnant or parenting girls should not be allowed to represent their school in extracurricular activities. Schools should not offer nurseries for girls who keep their babies. Teen mothers should not receive public benefits to keep their babies. They should receive appropriate health care for the child's sake. Studies show teenagers generally make poor parents; why should they receive public assistance to do something destructive for society at large?

As for the fathers, few pay significant child support or stay in the child's life long term.

Young people have a right to be educated as to the workings of their own body.

But.

I worry about the "As long as they're safe attitude". I don't think 14 year olds should be having sex.

I do worry that an unintended effect of not properly considered/unholistic sex education is that we are just making teenage girls more sexually accessible to boys and men at an ever younger age.

There's more to keeping our teenagers safe and healthy then avoiding sti's and unwanted pregnancies.

So OP, I'm on the fence as to whether YABU or YANBU, but I think we need to think about what we want sex ed to teach.

Teen mothers should not receive public benefits to keep their babies

ANd what would you have them eat? Or wear? What would you have them do to pay the bills of they are not in the family home? Ah right, we are back to bad old days of forced adoptions and traumatised young women. Good call!

I could sort of see your point until you said that. But I am now utterly disgusted at your attitude.

Bogeyface - They can eat their babies, just like Jonathan Swift wrote (as satire) all those years ago.