sex education
16 Jan 2009
They're Doing It Anyway
Critics of the AMA's proposal for earlier sex education are ignoring the fact that currently many kids are having experiences long before their education catches up, writes Scott Bridges
Don’t you love it when a submission is made to a government review and the media reports on the submission as if it’s destined to become government policy? It all comes down to the clever use of the word "could". Here’s the first paragraph of a story in The Age about an Australian Medical Association submission to the Victorian Government:
"Explicit sex education could be compulsory for children as young as 10 under radical proposals to curb Australia’s "alarmingly high" rate of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection."
Sure, the suggestions contained in the submission could be implemented in full, or they could be completely ignored. Doesn’t really matter, though, because the story’s heaps better if the likelihood of the government accepting the submission is played up, especially if the submission calls for something a little bit controversial.
The AMA is concerned about disturbingly high rates of STD infection amongst Australian teenagers, unwanted teenage pregnancies, and the piecemeal approach to sexual education in schools. They are calling for government funding to run a trial of a more standardised sex education program that would implement an AMA-proposed curriculum.
Currently there is no uniform program of sex education across government schools, and private schools are under no obligation to include sex education in their teaching at all. Some of the AMA’s proposals (such as the use of terms such as "blow job" and "fuck", and discussions about anal and oral sex) may indeed seem a bit "radical" (although kids already hear these words and ideas through the media and from their friends, so why not demystify them by openly discussing them?), but there seems to be no agenda behind the proposal other than informing kids and reducing the incidence of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
But The Age got the reaction it was after, with aghast chatter in certain dark corners of the blogosphere indicating severe opposition to the suggestions detailed in the submission. One learned blogger made the extraordinary claim that the AMA wanted to teach "buggery 101" to kids, and saw the plan as a pernicious attempt by "the left" to "impose their values upon the greater community". Then again, this particular blogger is terrified about the mysterious "gay agenda" which the AMA is clearly attempting to implement.
(Just for the record, according to The Age’s summary of the AMA submission there is no suggestion that the AMA wants homosexuality to be "taught" in schools.)
As for the proposed shake up of sex education, there is a lot of good sense and many good ideas contained in the submission. While the primary source of guidance and the transmitter of values in a child’s life should always be the child’s parents, it’s an unfortunate fact that there exist parents who don’t perform this important role for their kids. Whether those parents are unable, unwilling or uncaring doesn’t matter — the only important thing is that their children shouldn’t miss out on information and guidance that will help protect them against disease and the side effects of misadventure.
We’re not just talking about the dopiest of parents here: hands up if you reckon you could accurately and effectively explain the causes and effects of chlamydia to your son or daughter, or knock around the relative safety and danger of anal sex?
Schools are perfectly poised to fill these gaps and ensure that all children receive information and advice about safe conduct during their sexually adventurous teens, and for the rest of their lives. Plus money to properly train educators in the effective delivery of such sensitive and embarrassing material can only benefit students (and make life a bit easier for blushing teachers).
Of course, it’s in the details that the most vigorous debate occurs. The AMA says the trial program should begin for students at age 10, continuing at ages 12 and 14, with the age-appropriateness of content considered at every step. The Australian Childhood Foundation says that the program should start at 13, but the AMA counters with the argument that sexual education should begin before puberty and not be put off until it’s too late. Parents Victoria reckons that schools should just butt out altogether.
In reality, any age chosen as being the ideal starting point for sex education is rather arbitrary. Children develop at different rates and enter puberty at different ages: a mature 10-year-old girl may be capable of dealing with the more explicit concepts contained in the program, while an immature 13-year-old boy may not be. The fact remains that a lot of girls begin menstruating and a lot of boys get caught in a confusing tidal wave of testosterone before the end of primary school, so it’s game-on for sexual experimentation.
Most importantly though, kids aren’t dumb. Contrary to the popular myth that kids are incapable of forming considered opinions and thinking maturely, empathetically and meta-cognitively, a lot of children can engage in conversations about sex in a more adult-like fashion than the guys we all know in their mid-20s who giggle uncontrollably at the pub if somebody mentions boobs.
As always, a one-size-fits-all approach to any aspect of education is destined to fail. Schools and teachers need the flexibility to determine the appropriateness of any curriculum content for a given cohort of students, and the flexibility to alter its delivery as necessary. Sex education is no different.
And returning to the original point about parents having the final say over what and how their kids learn — the AMA’s plan allows for constant communication between the school and families about the sex education program, and for parents to have the ability to opt their child out of the lessons.
Perhaps it’s necesary to make one final point very clear for those having difficulty separating some of the issues here: Sex education in schools does not promote sexual activity — it’s been taught for decades and nobody could seriously suggest that lessons involving bananas and condoms have caused them to have more sex — what is true is that misinformation and confusion about sex leads to undesired and tragic outcomes.
We have an obligation as a society to ensure that all children are armed with the knowledge and confidence to make wise and healthy choices as they become sexually active — no matter how much it upsets the prudes.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Thanks Scott for raising this important topic.
Having worked for twenty years with young people I support the education of youth in these matters and many others. In fact I don’t see how we have the right to withhold the facts about sex from our children.
The real problem is that parents are failing to teach values of any kind to their children, deferring instead to the TV, peers and school education. This means that decision making around sex, drugs and many other risky behaviours is being made in an ethical vacuum.
I have delivered sex education to over a hundred school classes and have seen no material provided that encourages young people to have sex. In contast I have watched Video Hits a couple of times by accident and have seen heaps.
If I could teach kids anything that would make them better people as adults it would be not to read The Age. It is part of a media empire that promotes sex as a recreational activity, bargaining tool and an emotional currency. The Age has cajones the size of coconuts to even get into this arguement and can get stuffed.
I’m amazed that even talking about sex is such a major taboo. It’s OK to watch the news or a movie that has blood splatter death but discuss the start of life and you cross the line.
It has me stuffed how sex education can be equated with teh left. I’m bloody sick of everything being framed as a left vs right issue. This isn’t about politics; the AMA is looking for ways to mitigate a situation which is bad for individuals in particular and society as a whole. Nothing left wing about it: it’s common sense. “Buggery 101” my arse. Good on the AMA for putting suggestions forward, and I hope that the gumint gets a chance to consider the issue without further knee-jerk sensationalism from the media.
If anyone can explain to me why people can have sex before they’re legally allowed to see a video of someone else doing it, I’ll be thoroughly impressed.
I never read The Age anyway but any proposal in the best interests of our kids is a step in the right direction.
I take Toaf’s point too because I thought the same thing: why does some misguided pseudo-political twerp feel the need to brand this as a political exercise? that’s absolute rubbish. It is a medically based strategy idealised to benefit our young and prepare them better for the responsibilities of adulthood, ie, educated sex.
The amount of information available on the web, ie, pornographic web sites which are so easily accessible to underage kids it’s frightening [through game site pop ups], mingling with the wrong crowd or getting into that dark territory of molestation means that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Dr Dog pointed out learning from the television, well, unless they go to bed at the accepted time then it’s highly likely they will see at least one show with some form of sex in it. I have that problem with my son. With the advent of Foxtel [in my home] that makes it even more readily accessible because of the repeat channel. He just giggles and guffaws when those ads come on and that’s it.
Also, another thing I would mention because nobody has brought it up yet: the accessibility of sexually explicit websites available on mobile phones. The accessibility to 1900 numbers and the dire realisation that in this very fashion, a 14 year old girl who was featured on Dr Phil last year who was prostituting herself with older men (19 and older). Her other tool of communication was the internet.
The increasing access to all modes of technology means no parent can absolutely know for sure whether their underage kids are mixing with an influentially corrupt crowd or just being downright sneaky because of the ‘I dare you’ game they play at school.
There are several solutions to that: for Foxtel use the Parental Lockout System. My son is 14 and a decent boy and I am teaching him what is healthy and what isn’t; to respect his body and always respect a female’s.
He has a mobile phone but there is only enough credit on it (prepaid) for him to make calls home or download a music clip or two. Maybe if parents limited prepaid accounts that sort of access would discourage kids straying, at any rate, it is a suggestion.
Th idea of paid educators in schools to take the burden off the teachers sounds like a good idea to me. A different authority figure with sex education is likely to to encourage kids to pay more attention because it is their area of expertise. It then becomes much less a topic of sniggering but likely a topic of contention.
That girls mature physically earlier than boys is a good indicator to initiate an earlier start with sex education in schools. The boys, well I think they are too young. I know my son was when I thought about educating him.
I do think it comes back to parental control first and public learning second. Impose better restrictions on mobile phones, internet and television watching and that just may encourage limits.
Of course what happens at school in the playground, on the bus or on the way home, is another story.
Peer pressure from older kids can be a bit of a worry too.