Sex Ed.

I will provide some arguments of my own which favor comprehensive sexual education in schools, and then attempt to rebut my opponent's round 1 posting. I would also like to ask my opponent to address arguments in separate paragraphs, and if possible in a numbered fashion (as below), to help the debate go more smoothly. Good luck! 1. Puberty occurs during middle school and high school years, and guidance is required. Common knowledge about human biology informs us that children begin to experience their first sexual urges around age 12, or upon entering middle school. Unchecked hormones, as well as the fact that it has become socially acceptable to begin dating in middle school, make it necessary to inform children of the myriad dangers of sexual activity. Looking back into human history, we are actually breeding later and later, and much of that is both sex education being in place in schools and a morality shift, which is transmitted by both parents and school curriculum. Females are ready to bear children after their first menstruation, which generally occurs anywhere from 6th to 8th grade, and males are able to inseminate even early than that, at times. We've slowly progressed from marriage at 12 to marriage at 25, but moral standards does not change human biology. Students will continue to go through puberty and will continue to grapple with sexual urges whether we choose to ignore the issue or not. Hence, schools have a responsibility to teach sexual education. A school's main functions are socialization and information. Schools teach children not only essential subjects, but also how to be viable members of adult communities. Now, even if you don't agree that sex education is an essential subject (which I do), you must agree that schools serve this dual capacity. A major part of viable functionality in the adult world is sex and procreation. Therefore, it would seem to be in the natural way of it for a school to educate students about realities that they will face. Again, covering up something that will undeniably affect a student's life hardly seems beneficial to their thriving. I challenge my opponent to prove otherwise. 2. Education is an empirically successful way to improve health. I will use two very illustrative examples to prove how little abstinence-only education works to improve the quality of life around the world. My first example stems from right here in the United States. Some of you may have heard of the scandal of Rockdale County, Georgia, in which over 200 students were discovered to be engaged in a community sex ring, ages 13 to 18. How were they discovered? Due to an outbreak of syphilis amongst the ring. Rockdale County schools refused to include sex education in their curriculum, and parents turned a blissfully blind eye to their childrens' behaviors, or assumed that their moralizing was successfully keeping their children away from sex. Unfortunately, biology beat out Rockdale, and the county chose to revamp their sex ed. program. Upon hearing about this, thousands of school districts did the same. Under-education leads to risky and dangerous behavior. We see this in drug abuse, smoking, and alcohol, as well. Does my opponent oppose the D. A. R. E program, as well? My second example is far more illustrative and of world-wide concern. Currently, countries in Africa are being consumed by the AIDs virus. Some countries, like Botswana, can claim that ï¿½ of their adult population is infected with the virus. Over half of those victims are women, most likely involved in prostitution, which is the number 1 cause of the spread of AIDs in sub-Saharan Africa. This continent is also the most under-educated when it comes to sexual safety. Prostitutes and their customers are not encouraged to wear condoms, nor do they all know the dangers of the disease due to a completely inadequate educational system. The link between education and safety is clear: teach children to fear and respect the act of sex, and they will remain far safer than allowing them to live in ignorance. If children in Africa knew about the AIDs virus, then as they grow older, they probably would choose not to engage in risky sexual behaviors. In response to my opponent: "I am against sex ed. in schools cause I see no use for it. .. if someone wants to learn more on sex ed. let that be some class outside of school. .. .mostly everyone in school is under 18 and there to learn about the typical subjects and not about sex" The use for sexual education is outlined in both of my arguments. In a first world nation like the US, sex education is a necessity to curb incredibly strong hormonal responses and to prevent the spread of disease. I believe that 1 in 4 Americans have at least one STI at this point in time. Teaching students about those STI's will statistically limit their transmission, as well as teaching them about safe ways to engage in sex (such as barrier contraceptives). And, while sex ed. may not be "typical," I argue that it is essential. ". .. .. .. if you teach them about sex they will take it as teachers telling them there old enough for it. .. .just like drivers ed. When kids took drivers ed they knew that they was old enough to drive. Same thing with sex ed. It seems to be fine with calling Anyone under 18 a minor yet we want to ram sex down there through while there still in school! Jr High students are not adults! .. .High school student are not adults! .. .its one way or the other you eather lower the adult age or take sex ed. out. .. .. .. ." 1. Age is an arbitrary standard by which to measure adulthood. Age also does not correlate well with biological development at all. While we call an adult 18 years old, a person's hormones start telling them to have sex at about age 12. The 6 years in between must be accounted for somehow. Ignoring those 6 years will only lead to more Rockdale County incidents. 2. Sexual education doesn't encourage kids to have sex. In fact, it does exactly the opposite, by revealing the dangers of sexual activity to students when it matters the most: puberty. They are less likely to be able to interpret or control sexual urges at that stage, since it is a period of immense biological adjustment. I also fail to see the connection between driver's ed. and sex ed. Driving is not encouraged by a biological hormone shift. We don't have the hormonal urge to drive… "and by the way. .. .. putting condom machines in the schools is basically telling the student (go ahead. .have sex) whats the point? ? are they going to put more sex items in school in the future? .. .Oh no there not trying to encourage anything. .its just there in case its needed. .. . (ya right). .. .. ." Even though I agree with the placement of condom machines in high schools, I think that it is out of the scope of this debate. The placement of a condom machine is separate from a sexual education curriculum, which is what your topic clearly limits the debate to. "and the parents who are for this sex ed. i think is brainwashed. and ya wander why kids are in a rush to have sex? .. .they think there adults. .. .and the kids that are still virgins are being seeing as immature by other students AND adults. " While I must agree that the pressure to have sex prior to leaving for college is high, that is only more reason for sexual education to exist. Sex education validates those who choose to wait, and it supports their decision. Have you actually designed or been taught a comprehensive sexual education curriculum? As a certified, highly qualified teacher with a Bachelor's degree in Education, I can honestly and confidently say that, unless the curriculum was designed by someone highly underqualified, it will not contain any sort of sexual encouragement. In fact, it supports the idea that teenagers are too young to have sex. As my opponent cannot link sex ed.