Sunday, 13 June 2010

The Result of Sex Education in Schools



The above figures exclude data from other sources other than sexual health clinics. Health workers believe numbers have risen dramatically since 2008 especially in cases of chlamydia.

The numbers for those being checked for the infection is staggering and represent a 14% rise on the previous year. Official figures show the largest increase in testing for chlamydia is among the youngest age group. The latest statistics saw a dramatic rise of 21% in tests on young men aged 16-24 and in young women of the same age there was an increase of 16% recorded in the same period.

A sexual health clinic source is speaking out anonymously because of her concerns of youngsters putting themselves at risk. She paints a bleak picture of irresponsible behaviour.

"There are more young boys and girls aged 12 and 13 having sex these days than ever before," she said.

"I don't know why they are starting so young but we see the fallout. (Could this also be part of the reason?)

"The knock-on effect is that cases of underage pregnancies and kids having chlamydia and other STIs rise. In many clinics the staff can't cope with the numbers.

"We are seeing a lot of teens with STIs or coming in for abortions.

"I have been told stories about 'daisy-chaining' where groups of teenagers from both sexes go to someone's house while the parents are out and swap partners until every boy has been with every girl.

"The problem is often fuelled by alcohol which they consume at parties and sometimes younger teens can be forced into having sex.

"If they're thought to be mature enough then patients don't need to have their parents with them when they're being treated for STIs or having abortions.

"They can also tell them not to send anything to their GP or house.

"The kids can get the bus into town for an abortion during the day and get back up the road for their dinner without their parents ever knowing."

Tory health spokesperson Mary Scanlon MSP said teens must be educated about the dangers of practices such as daisy-chaining.

That's nonsense. It's sex education which has stimulated the very young to experiment to this degree, along with the fact that they can dictate to health professionals that they don't want parents to be informed. Who decides if an under 16-year-old is mature? I thought all under 16-year-olds were called children and until they reach the age of 16 they are the full responsibility of their parents.

These children have no barriers to sex. There is no punishment for behaving in this manner at such a young age. For many of us over say 40, the very thought that your parents would be told or find out was enough to make you run a mile. As for acquiring an STI, I would have been mortified, even when a young adult.

Sex education in schools hasn't produced good sexual behaviour in children - certainly not going by these figures - so isn't it time it was given less of a priority and more time spent on learning how to read, write (plus spell) and add well enough to gain adequate employment when they leave education?


20 comments:

Joe Public said...

Whilst chemistry lessons stimulated interest in explosives, it would seem that sex education lessons just stimulated.......

Stewart Cowan said...

It has all been deliberate. The order of the day is to destroy the family to give the state greater control of our lives.

That's why they sneer at the idea of promoting fidelity and chastity, and instead they are producing a dysfunctional society through promoting sex as just another recreational activity. They are dehumanising children to be dependent on the state.

They actually tell children things like "people have sex because it is fun". Like they won't discover this themselves when the time is right.

It's no longer about right and wrong, but about "preventing teenage pregnancy". That seems to be the only message. Get the kids having all the sex they can get, but throw condoms at them and abort their unborn children without their parents being informed.

There are more STDs because there is more illicit sex because that is exactly what is being promoted.

Hythlodaeus said...

Try typing "sex" into google. Any 12 or 13 year old is capable of doing that and getting more information about sex then they could ever dream of getting in school.

Blaming the growth of sex amongst young people on sex education is a fallacy which has been around for as long as the classes. They completely fail to take account of changes in society which show more sexual expression in the media, glamorisation of promiscuity (see the Gossip and lads mags) and the increasing availability of pornography.

If you cut sex education, you won't see a decline in STIs. You'll see an increasingly rapid increase in STIs and teen pregnancy from kids who know the actions but don't know the precautions.

It should probably be noted that the increasing number of cases recorded reflects increases sexuality amongst 18-24 year olds, few inhibitions and greater awareness of the symptoms of STIs.

I'd also suggest that Mr Cowan, above, should look at both peer revived studies on sex education with the focus on chastity in America (it does little except amongst those with strong religious conviction) and possibly views some sex education material himself, during which he will find that it places emphasis on sex being something associated with a relationship, something of significance and something which should not be done until both partners feel ready. Much like giving up chastity.

Kids are going to have sex, with or without sex ed in schools. They always have and they always will.

Dramfineday said...

No keep the education going - ignorance is a force of darkness - but part of the education is to show them films of the diseases and their effects - just like they used to do to in the Forces. Ok it didn't stop everyone but getting a packet put you in deep trouble.....

Involve the parents when the education is being delivered - nothing like mum and dad fidgeting in their seats when the facts of life come out.

Oh, and we could start to de-sexulise the media and retail and the messages and products they try to sell to the young (and stupid parents) - high heels for three year olds anyone?

Dean MacKinnon-Thomson said...

Very good article SR!

Got me thinking, did you see the Telegraphs figures on the rates on abortion?

1,000 girls under 14 had abortions last year, and 34% of women who had an abortion, had had one previously too.

In my opinion there is something seriously wrong with sex education in schools. It seems to be all about the mechanics [and free condoms], with a gaping absense where moral and ethical teaching ought to be alongside.

subrosa said...

I like that comparison Joe.

subrosa said...

I would tend to agree with much of what you say Stewart. There has been so much social engineering in the past 30+ years and this is part of it.

subrosa said...

I would disagree somewhat Hythlodaeus. Sex books and info were available when I was young (sex education wasn't). Fair enough, porn is more available nowadays and and risque advertising is slightly more risque but it was parents who gave the best sex education. Not that they sat us down and told us much except ' don't you dare bring disgrace on this family etc etc'. That was enough for most youngsters to think twice.

Part of the problem today would appear to be that youngsters have ready money to buy alcohol which plays a big part.

I've seen some of the sex education material and the emphasis seems to be on what to do if you get an STI or pregnant. Ask a 15 year old and they'll be able to reel of the places they can get help and their 'rights' that parents don't need to know a thing.

That perhaps is what's wrong. If children knew their parents would be involved then it may deter them from taking part too soon or too often.

Of course children will have sex, but the rise in STIs shows they're having it much more often than they did even a few years ago. And that's with sexual health being a main part of the modern curriculum.

subrosa said...

I'd agree with that Dram. Less emphasis and more of the less pleasant side of it.

Aye I read about high heels for 3 year olds. How do retailers get away with selling these things? But I suppose they thought there was a market for them.

subrosa said...

No, I didn't see it Dean but it doesn't surprise me. I knew someone who worked in a clinic (she's recently retired) and she said many had had more than one or two abortions. The young didn't have a clue what damage abortion could cause to their bodies or information about the procedure itself. That needs to be shown graphically over and over again.

I've said it before but it's worth repeating. Females have to take more responsibility about health. After all, they're the ones who are left holding the baby.

Indyanhat said...

Nope, sorry Rosa, all sensible comment has fled my brain after seeing the verification for this comment...'Weebone'
I'll maybe look in tomorrow and add something to the debate but tonight I'm just ROTFL too much!!!
gad how do I take a screenshot of this one????

subrosa said...

Oh dearie me Indyan, I have to say honestly there's no 'fix' on this comment page. :)

I laughed too, hope you don't mind. If you require my sympathy just ask. ;)

TheBigYin said...

Bloody hell Subrosa, you opened a can of worms there, didn't you. I won't add anything insightful as I never had kids (and it's too late now, at my age...well I don't know, men can reproduce till they shuffle off this mortal coil, can't they.)

Very interesting blog post though which gives me an insight into what kids get up to these days.

banned said...

I learned all I needed to know from my schoolmates who got it from their older brothers or the milkman (when they were still allowed to earn pocket money helping him on his early round), never got any STDs and made no-one pregnant for many years.

Mind you if Mary Scanlon MSP had been around to introduce such exotica as daisy-chaining perhaps I would not have had such a sheltered life.

subrosa said...

Is it Mary Scanlon's Edinburgh accent which attracted you banned? ;)

subrosa said...

Aye Big Yin, this is one of these subjects that is clearly divided down definite yes or no lines.

Indyanhat said...

Thank you for your understanding, Rosa!!!

The mere fact it was a scottish blog and wee bone was just so apt ...aaaannd I had just finished my second bottle of wine...no contest really jaw hit ground ..brain took a hike...body fell apart laughing, it was all I could do to type what I did...

No sympathy needed, have never had any complaints yet...

I do want to echo the comments above though, these days there is sooo much out there available to the young. Sex education does make sense and the chance to inform them of the dangers etc and not have them growing up with a head full of the kind of images that can be acessed today without the knowledge of how to deal with life s BIGGEST problem (well at that age anyway) is just asking for trouble
Back in prehistory where I come from it was all ignorance and innocence and a good deal of luck (if you were lucky).
How do the figures you actually quoted there fair when you take into account the increases in the population base?
One has to be very careful to make sure that the figures are not distorted by such a factor, as it looks I would guess that in fact the percentage incidence per 1000 head of population looks like it has actually fallen across most groups in the table....!!!

this verification is 'cheati'(ng) gets you diseases, too funny!!!

subrosa said...

Auch Indyan, no complaints? It just goes to show that women lie. :)

My thoughts on this is that sex education in schools isn't providing the 'right' information.

Wasn't it more fun to be ignorant and innocent? I certainly think so. The pressures put upon people today about sex is mind-blowing for me.

I mean, if a woman doesn't have an orgasm she's inadequate of her lover is. How daft is that? If I extended my reasons then I'd be thought as compliant which I certainly am not.

Indyanhat said...

Rosa, I have never minded if they lie , stand, bend or squat as long as they don't complain it'll do me fine!!!;)

Yeah I agree I enjoyed the innocent phase very much indeed, or should I say the final enlightening process!

Hell you think women have a problem with the orgasm thing, if they don't they don't, if it happens that a man doesn't 'then' it becomes a big thing, outlasting a woman was never a problem for me, and delay/postponement of ejaculation hell that surely is what pleasure is 'all' about 3mins and fffffft just isn't worth the doing of...

verification 'whalsing' Matilda I presume!!!

subrosa said...

I had an email today from a younger female reader Indyan. Of course the content is confidential but I'm sure she wouldn't mind me saying there's far too much in magazines about organism, both male and female. She also said there's little about fun, laughter and pure basic lust.

Related Posts with Thumbnails