Article Review : When Sex Goes School

During 1920s, U.S. schools began to incorporate sex education to their courses. A 2002 study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that “58% of secondary school principals describe their sex education curriculum as comprehensive programs provide factual information about birth control, sexual transmitted disease, and continue the message to children about waiting to have sex.” (Johannah)

It was only in late Stage 3 that the topic of sexuality was approached – through intensive

I think it is safe to say that no two words elicit more feelings of concern, anxiety, and anger in parents, and stirs up more controversy and debate than the words “sexual education”. This especially true with the implementation of the new, revised sexual education curriculum in Ontario schools. Consequently, this controversy has strongly divided individuals, families, and organizations between those who approved of and those who opposed and protested against school-based programs that providee sexual health education to children. But why so much opposition? This is due to the significant changes made to the sexual education curriculum and the sensitive nature of the topics being taught to children regarding sexuality as a whole, changes which are seen as both radical and “even more explicit and more age-inappropriate than before…” (“Ontario’s Radical,” n.d.).

Such a controversial vote ignited a great debate throughout the community: among parents, school officials, government officials, and religious leaders. It forced the community to discuss a topic that is still uncomfortable for many confer --youth sex education. “How should we go about teaching sex education to children?” When should children be exposed to this type of information?” These are the types of questions the community pondered while weighing in on the debate. Despite the sexual revolution of the 1900’s and into the 2000’s, discussing sex education is still a contentious topic even in 2015. The author Nancy Gibbs does a extraordinary job examining the various perspectives of the debate in “Birth Control for Kids?

During the 1950’s, many American educational videos were polarized towards the male gender, especially in sexual education videos for adolescents. After reviewing a sexual education video that was produced during the 1950’s, I can infer that society during this time period was very male-dominated and strictly abided by traditional gender roles since it prioritized the curriculum of a male’s reproductive system. Although today’s society no longer defines a woman as a passive, stay-at-home mother and has started to embrace the minority of individuals who identify with various sexualities and genders, I can deduce that there were no major changes in sexual education from the 1950’s and now. This is because there is a lack for comprehensive sexual

“The ideal of what historian Anne Higonnet calls the Romantic Child, our modern image of a naturally asexual, pure child, is at the heart of century-long conflicts over sex education. By definition, the romantic child’s innocence depends on protection from sexuality” (Talk About Sex 13). Parents, in general, do not feel at ease thinking about their children having sex, nor do they want to encourage them to do so. The fact that most parents are not comfortable talking about the subject with their children only increases the importance of doing so in our schools.

Long before the development of iconic male-dominated American culture, the ideals of a patriarchal society have been implemented within the foundations of multiple civilizations, serving to dictate the actions of its individuals under the black-and-white confines of social constructions like gender roles, gender binary, sex roles, and many other aspects of everyday life that are still present at this very moment. One of the most crucial elements of contemporary American society that these limiting patriarchal values have latched onto is the comprehensive sexual education of it's youth. Undoubtedly, those who need it most are almost always doomed to receive the short-end of the stick with the introduction of Abstinence-Only education—a method that has been consistently proven to embed misogynistic and gender-discriminatory ideals within its shame-based and fear-centered curriculum, in addition to being profoundly ineffective in preventing the negative aspects that go along with unsafe sexual activity; much less effective than it's counterpart, Comprehensive Sexual Education. This unbiased, fact-based, and health-focused method of sex-ed serves to inform students about a number of topics in an age-appropriate context, allowing them to make choices they are comfortable and familiar with when it comes to a time they feel they are ready to make them, regardless of what sex, gender, or orientation they happen to identify with.

Levine 's claim still holds true today. The idea that sex is a normal and positive part of child and adolescent life is unspeakable in the American public forum. Chastity and abstinence education is evidence of such idea, and it is impractical, useless, negative, and ideological. Sex education in this country abandons children (teens in particular) to learn about their sexuality on their own by trial and error. Rather than treat intimate sexual relationships as a positive component of healthy

Sex education has always been a controversial topic, especially to the extent that it is taught to. Under the early years of the Reagan administration, the Adolescent Family Life Act was passed for abstinence-only education based on the presumption that talking about sex in school would promote sexual activities among teenagers. The two-point act was quietly passed in 1981, as it was not voted on by the House and was coded under Title XX of the Public Service Health Act. The first point was to provide at least two-thirds of funds to support pregnant teenagers, while the second point’s purpose was to use the remaining one-third or less to discourage sexual acts until marriage. Lawrence (2007) asserted that teenage pregnancy rates at the time of passing were rising, so the government wanted to stop everything all together. Since then, billions of dollars have been spent and more laws have been passed to promote abstinence-only education. Pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the U.S. actually continued to rise, despite what was believed that the acts and funding could accomplish (p. 2). Though scientists and accredited researchers saw this coming, they continued with research to finalize conclusions with the majority hypothesis that comprehensive sex education would show the greatest improvement among teenage pregnancy. Comprehensive sex education

Another major key to making healthy decisions in a person’s sexual life is respect for the bodily autonomy of oneself and one’s peers regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. In comprehensive sex education, young people are informed that they have the right to say no

Sex education has been the single most controversial debate in the United States education systems within the past few decades, but was first introduced as early as 1905 where there was a rally for sex education within schools in attempts to eradicate venereal disease (The Beginning of Sex Education in the U.S.: A Historical Perspective). There was not much support at this time though, until the 1980’s when there was the HIV/AID’s epidemic. This was when more people became aware of what was going on and tried figuring out how to put a stop to it, and quick. Surprisingly, in the early twentieth century, people were actually taught to be fearful of sex and that such contact could result in fatality. Many young boys and girls were actually taught

Recently there has been a lot of debate about the new sexual education curriculum being taught to children from a younger age and how it will affect them. Some people say that children are too young to be learning this information and then how they use it will be in a negative manner. What frightens most parents is that they can raise their children as they wish, but have very little control over what other people do with their children (Wolfe, D. A. 2015, February 28).The Ontario sex-education curriculum is an necessary step to address the fears of parents that their children could be victimized, harmed, or take part in behaviours that carry significant risk but the new curriculum is quite different from the older version because it is more explicit, it also is going against catholic school

Throughout history, definitions of sexuality within a culture are created and then changed time after time. During these changes, we have seen the impact and power one individual or group can have over others. In the Late Nineteenth Century into the Early Twentieth Century, we see multiple groups of people and or authorities taking control over the idea of sex and how they believe society is being impacted by sex. At this point in time, society had groups of people who believed they had the power to control how society as whole viewed and acted upon sex. Those particular groups and ideas changed many lives and the overall definition of sexuality within that culture.

As children grow, they accumulate knowledge over the years about a variety of subjects to prepare them for the future. Children learn from parents, schools, life experiences, what they watch and other influences around them, and it can be either positive learning or negative learning. There is one subject that is difficult to teach and have control over because of misunderstandings, lack of teaching, and publicity. Sex education has been a major debate for children under eighteen, because there are some parents that want it taught in schools and others that do not because of different reasons. There are currently eighteen states and the District of Columbia that require schools to provide sex education and thirty-two that do not require

There are many states that do not provide the kind of sex education that New Jersey strives to convey to its students. It more often than not ties in with the religious right proclaiming that students are too young to be exposed to sexual material, and thus sexualized as a result. These fundamental groups oppose any suggestion towards a comprehensive approach. Instead, they ask that their children be taught after grade school and additionally, they steer towards ‘abstinence-only’ education. Instead of teaching students how to protect themselves, they teach that the only way to protect oneself is by abstaining from sex. The problem arises, then, when these students decide to have sex. They are unaware of how to conduct themselves responsibly, how to take precautions to prevent against unwanted pregnancy and disease. What kind of ‘education’ are students receiving when they are withheld crucial information?