Originally posted by aldo_14
Actually, that's complete rubbish. Firstly, the age of sex has varied hugely across time; before the idea of sexual education was conceived, pediastry was commonplace in Ancient Greece, and it was equally common for grown men to marry young teenage girls in europe much later on (In Romeo and Juliet, for example, Juliet was 14-15).
Yes, they were totaly f*/** up in those ages. But there is a difference here. A young heir to the thornoe being promissed to a old geezer is wrong, but it's not the sam as two 12 year-old doing it.
Secondly, there is a significant problem with child abuse and child trafficking in Africa (for example). One singular example - directly caused by a lack of sexual education - is that having sex with a virgin can cure HIV/AIDs. A second cause is different gender roles. You assume to be basing an assumption that child abuse is less prevalent in poor, uneducated areas because less is (perhaps) reported; truth is that there are simply no facilities to report (or treat) abuse in many of these places.
Another example - a 1997 study found that child abuse in Harare was 3 times higher than in the rest of the world. Part of this was due to cultural notions that marriage with a 12-year old was acceptable, rape is condoned as a more serious form of seduction, and that it is encouraged for maternal uncles to fondle girls as a form of socialisation.
And that's why I said that education is paramount, or else people wn't abandon the old practices and myths.
In fact, western studies have shown that sex education raises the age of first sexual encounter (i.e. in Holland, it is taught earlier than the UK, yet the sex occurs on average at a later age); and that children who leave school early prior to sex education in the UK are more likely to have sex - and unprotected at that - earlier.
Similarly, those who left school with a qualification were less likely to have sex early, practise unsafe sex or become pregnant. [/i]
I'm not against sex education - quite the contrary. What I was trying to say is that there is a time, place and way for everything.
The age at which you teach sex education, exactly what you tech and the y way you teach it are of immense importance.
Unless all 3 are done correctly, more damage then good can be done..
Thirdly, you're making a completely pointless link between the media and sex education. Sex education is not, and has never been about 'encouraging' sex; you'd be an idiot if you thought that was the point of it. The point of it is to explain sex - the physical purpose of it, the consequences, and the possible risks. The protective use of contraceptives is described, as is the dangers of STDs and casual sex.
Again, none of this is of a purpose to 'sexualise' the pupils; the development of - for lack of a better term - sexuality is a societal issue, not educatory. If you removed sex education altogether, you'd end up with more under-age sex without protection, and more STDs, as has been scientifically proven in studies.
If you want to attack under-age sexuality, then criticise the medias role; but don't relate sexual education to it, because it bears no relation - if anything, it's a specific response to that problem, to allow people to make more educated decisions. [/B]
Yes, youre completely right, the media and society itself are the root of the problem.
