Affiliated Institution:
Introduction
Sex has been considered to be a taboo topic in the human society. For many years, many people buried their heads in the sand and chose not to have public discussions about the topic (Aggleton and Iyer, 2014). This is because it was considered to be a private affair, only between those individuals involved in it. However, times have changed and the realization of increasing sexual activity amongst the youth facilitated the need for action. In this case, sex education was introduced in public schools in a bid to provide necessary information required in the conduct of sexual activities. Furthermore, increased infection rates of AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections also contributed greatly to introduction of the curriculum. The introduction of sex education has had different effects to the school children. There have been positive as well as negative effects. Introduction of sexual education to middle-school has led to increased cases of sexual drives which have led to increased risky sexual behaviors amongst the preadolescent.
Influences of religion have long since campaigned for the practice of abstinence among unmarried youth. This concept is guided by religious practices and beliefs. For this reason, a majority of these institutions have been largely unsupportive over sex education and instead prefer education and information about abstinence. According to Aggleton and Iyer (2014), the society has supported the teachings on safe sex rather than abstinence. In this case, Aggleton and Iyer indicate that this shift has contributed to the corruption of morals in the society, an aspect characterized by unplanned pregnancies, early sexual initiation, and immoral sexual behavior (2014). On the contrary, Bragg (2006) provides that young people are engaging in sexual activity and the ignorance of this issue would be a foolish, if not irresponsible. This consideration is true, as provided by Krauss, Spitznagel and Iguchi (2012) who indicates that approximately 54% of young people have had some type of sexual experiences. Also, 40% of students from the ninth grade have engaged in sex (Algur, 2013). Therefore, with these statistics in mind, it becomes important to introduce sex education in schools in order to provide adequate information and resources so as to improve the quality of decisions made by young people (Attwood & Smith, 2011). However, the argument has been the timing aspect of introduction of sex education in the school system.
In order to understand the consequences of sex education to school-going individuals, it is important to comprehend the meaning of sex education. According to Algur (2013), this refers to the process of acquisition of knowledge and information about sex, sexual identity, and intimate relationships. The objective of this approach is to equip young individuals with the right knowledge in order to encourage confidence over their decisions and choices related to sexual issues. With this definition in mind, the teachings on tolerance in consideration to sexual orientation are largely controversial in today’s society with both sides calling for the need for the issue to be addressed by the education system (Hendricks, 2011). The basic approach used in schools is the showing of video content revolving around sex and provision of general information about sex. The effectiveness of this program has been challenged over time.
According to Lesko (2010), the nature of the lessons presents an uncomfortable environment that may cause students to block the communicated information. For instance, Lesko indicates that while in school, the sex education program was taught by a physical education teacher (2010). This situation challenges the communication of quality information owing to the lack of proper qualifications required to teach the subject. This concept has been adopted by Planned Parenthood, which has created a curriculum for comprehensive sex education called the Get Real program. This curriculum focuses on social and emotional learning skills such as self-management, decision-making skills, self-confidence, and social and self-awareness. Even though the program introduces important life concepts and lessons, the age at which it is introduced should be taken into consideration. The pre-adolescent level is comprised of children who at this stage are focused on the formation of proper relationships among their friends and their approach to different situations in the society. Providing such information at this stage would not be helpful as it consists of issues that are not identified with middle-school children. In this case, the most appropriate age would be individuals at the start of the adolescent stage. At this point, the affected individuals are engaged in self-discovery as they seek to understand their individuality and sexuality.
Also, the introduction of sex education among middle-school children would play a significant role in the child’s early sexual activity as a result of the cultivation of interest following exposure of comprehensive sexual information. At this level of human development, children are curious and would like to experiment on different situations. This situation is provided by Bragg, Buckingham, Russell, and Willet (2011) who indicate that the participation of children in social media sites such as Facebook without parental consent could lead to their exposure to sex at an early age. This fact is also supported by Bragg who indicates that the admiration of principles of pop culture can facilitate sexual activity as children will imitate activities they see their favorite celebrities carry out through magazines, the internet, or television (2006). For instance, young girls could start dressing provocatively, which may lead to the provision of wrong signals to the opposite sex. Providing sex education to preadolescents who are exposed to sexual content as described above, one may only equip them with information they require to start begin participating in sexual activities at a young age.
In this case, the child would use the sexual information provided as an experiment to judge whether the information communicated is true, or otherwise. As a result, this information would contribute to other psychosocial issues resulting from early participation in sexual activities such as increased probability of depression-related issues and a high consequence of suicidal thoughts (Silva, 2002).
An opposing view of the introduction of sex education to middle-school students is also advanced by Grossman (2010). In this case, Grossman indicates that the programs initiated by the Planned Parenthood as indicated above are misleading as they do not focus on providing critical biological information, which lead to high-risk behaviors (2010). Grossman further indicates that this organization, alongside similar programs such as Advocates for Youth and SIECUS are funded by the federal government and as a result aim to address the issues of intolerance, and are not focused on only Sexually Transmitted Infections (2010). The “Advocates for Youth” support Grossman’s observations as they view sexual education as being a fundamental right of every youth. This consideration, as indicated by Kohler is misleading and politically incorrect, as he believes that the provision of sexual freedom leads to the suffering of sexual health (2008). One can argue that the above organizations are negatively impacting the health of middle-school children, who are exposed to sex education due to the lack of focus on the resulting health issues as oppose to their emphasis on the advancement of political agenda.
Ashcraft (2008) also supports the above concept. According to Ashcraft, sex education is not an educational program but rather a social movement (2008). The above three organizations are keen on the disruption of social order and the removal of Judeo-Christian principles that are deemed restrictive. In as much as the organizations indicate the importance of abstinence they are guilty of providing different information to parents and students as an attempt to gain favor from both sides (Knight, 2002). In the former case, as with regards to their websites, they insist on abstinence. However, in the latter instance, the above organizations support the enforcement of rights and the identification of one’s sexual identity.
In light of this information, it is clear that middle-school students are not ready for the exposure of sex education. This indication is also proven medically, in which case the part of the brain that is responsible for decision-making is not fully developed. As a result, this would cause irresponsible sexual behavior leading to risky future lifestyles. Sexual education to children in the preadolescent age should not be encouraged. The children may be in danger of increased sexual drives which may lead to risky and harmful behavior from them.
References
Algur, V. (2013). High School Teachers’ Opinion about Sex Education for Adolescents. International Journal of Health Sciences & Research. Retrieved from http://www.ijhsr.org/vol_current_issue_july_2013/9.pdf
Ashcraft, C. (2008). So Much More Than “Sex Ed”: Teen Sexuality as Vehicle for Improving Academic Success and Democratic Education for Diverse Youth. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 631–667. http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207313344
Attwood, F., & Smith, C. (2011). Investigating young people’s sexual cultures: An Introduction. Sex Education, 11(3), 235–242. http://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.590040
Bragg, S. (2006). “Having a real debate”: Using media as a resource in sex education. Sex Education, 6(4), 317–331. http://doi.org/10.1080/14681810600981830
Bragg, S., Buckingham, D., Russell, R., & Willett, R. (2011). Too much, too soon? Children, “sexualization” and consumer culture. Sex Education, 11(3), 279–292. http://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.590085
Grossman, M. (2010, August 9). You’re Teaching My Child What? The Truth About Sex Education. [Heritage Organization]. Retrieved March 9, 2016, from http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/youre-teaching-my-child-what-the-truth-about-sex-education
Hendricks, J. (2011). Teaching Values, Teaching Stereotypes. University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume13/issue3/HendricksHowerton13U.Pa.J.Const.L.587(2011).pdf
Iyer, P., & Aggleton, P. (2014). Seventy years of sex education in Health Education Journal: a critical review. Health Education Journal, 9(4), 0017896914523942. http://doi.org/10.1177/0017896914523942
Kohler, P. K. (2008). Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(4), 344–351. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.026
Knight, R. (2002). Advocates for Youth Sex: Group Pushes ‘Child Sexuality’Organization Peddles Discredited Kinsey Philosophy | CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA. Retrieved from.http://www.cwfa.org/advocates-for-youth-sex-group-pushes-child-sexualityorganization-peddles-discredited-kinsey-philosophy/
Krauss, M. J., Spitznagel, E. L., & Iguchi, M. (2012). Associations between sexuality education in schools and adolescent birthrates: a state-level longitudinal model. Archives Of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 166(2), 134–140. http://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.657
Lesko, N. (2010). Feeling abstinent? Feeling comprehensive? Touching the affects of sexuality curricula. Sex Education, 10(3), 281–297. http://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2010.491633
Silva, M. (2002). The effectiveness of school-based sex education programs in the promotion of abstinent behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Education Research, 17(4), 471–481. http://doi.org/10.1093/her/17.4.471
