The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have decided to start a discussion on the topic of sex education. This idea has come from reading the "Young Prostitutes" thread and this comment:
xgamer wrote:
>
> They teach them at 10 actually. Isn't that a bit young ?
>
Haldisa wrote:
>
>I dont think so.
Sex Education: Where Do You Stand?
This is my opinion, I would like to hear where you stand in each of these 3 areas:
Teaching in schools
I feel the teaching of sex education in schools leaves a lot to be desired. In my school we had maybe 3 lessons in religion class each year on the subject, all very basic where a baby comes from stuff, nothing at all dealing with the emotional side rather than the physical. In primary school we had one day in our last year dedicated to sex education, it was pointless. It consisted of the woman reading through a couple of stories about teenagers’ dilemmas with their boy/girlfriends and a discussion of what we as a class thought would be the right outcome to the situation. I have heard of schemes run in other schools where parents are more involved in the sex education programme. This I feel, has its positives and its negatives for the child, but should be an option given in more schools to have parent involvement.
Teaching at home
I think this is the vital area for a child to develop a sexual education. I am a firm believer that it should be the parents who teach the child about sexual relationships. Parents, unlike teachers, can give their child something that usually isn’t present in a school situation – two way communication and a bond that hopefully gives the child the confidence to talk when they need to about sexual matters. I feel that one of the more important areas of parenting is dealing with sex education in a positive manner, unfortunately it is an area largely ignored by most parents simply because it can be awkward and uncomfortable sometimes, but surely your child having the right information and the confidence to talk to you when they want or need to is far more important.
What age?
So, at what age should the subject first be broached with a child? Well that does largely depend on the child and when the parent feels they are ready, but sometimes it may be better if the parent helps the child be ready than wait until they feel the child is ready. I think first approaching the subject when the child is young, maybe 8-9 is a positive step, it opens the door before the child has had too much exposure to the schoolyard rumours and gossip, and also starts building the relationship from a young age between parent and child. At this young age obviously not too much info need be given but it also means that as the child grows there doesn’t need to be one time where the child gets an information overload and then it’s never mentioned again.
xgamer wrote:
>
> They teach them at 10 actually. Isn't that a bit young ?
>
Haldisa wrote:
>
>I dont think so.
Sex Education: Where Do You Stand?
This is my opinion, I would like to hear where you stand in each of these 3 areas:
Teaching in schools
I feel the teaching of sex education in schools leaves a lot to be desired. In my school we had maybe 3 lessons in religion class each year on the subject, all very basic where a baby comes from stuff, nothing at all dealing with the emotional side rather than the physical. In primary school we had one day in our last year dedicated to sex education, it was pointless. It consisted of the woman reading through a couple of stories about teenagers’ dilemmas with their boy/girlfriends and a discussion of what we as a class thought would be the right outcome to the situation. I have heard of schemes run in other schools where parents are more involved in the sex education programme. This I feel, has its positives and its negatives for the child, but should be an option given in more schools to have parent involvement.
Teaching at home
I think this is the vital area for a child to develop a sexual education. I am a firm believer that it should be the parents who teach the child about sexual relationships. Parents, unlike teachers, can give their child something that usually isn’t present in a school situation – two way communication and a bond that hopefully gives the child the confidence to talk when they need to about sexual matters. I feel that one of the more important areas of parenting is dealing with sex education in a positive manner, unfortunately it is an area largely ignored by most parents simply because it can be awkward and uncomfortable sometimes, but surely your child having the right information and the confidence to talk to you when they want or need to is far more important.
What age?
So, at what age should the subject first be broached with a child? Well that does largely depend on the child and when the parent feels they are ready, but sometimes it may be better if the parent helps the child be ready than wait until they feel the child is ready. I think first approaching the subject when the child is young, maybe 8-9 is a positive step, it opens the door before the child has had too much exposure to the schoolyard rumours and gossip, and also starts building the relationship from a young age between parent and child. At this young age obviously not too much info need be given but it also means that as the child grows there doesn’t need to be one time where the child gets an information overload and then it’s never mentioned again.
Page:
JFH wrote:
>
> No, in some ways that's worse because you don't know where your
> personal problems will be passed on to before you get a response.
In other words you wouldnt trust the parents to keep the confidence of their own child?
> Just talking to your peers can get you a lot of information and with
> newspapers, tv and the internet there is plent of other information
> available. Of course not all of it is reliable, South Park for
> example isn't the best teacher
I would say quite a lot of it is unreliable, I would personally discourage a child from using these means as their main sources of information.
>
> No, in some ways that's worse because you don't know where your
> personal problems will be passed on to before you get a response.
In other words you wouldnt trust the parents to keep the confidence of their own child?
> Just talking to your peers can get you a lot of information and with
> newspapers, tv and the internet there is plent of other information
> available. Of course not all of it is reliable, South Park for
> example isn't the best teacher
I would say quite a lot of it is unreliable, I would personally discourage a child from using these means as their main sources of information.
Haldisa wrote:
> Novocaine wrote:
>
> Some kids just wouldn't want to talk to their parents though no
> matter how much they've read, i think you have to provide as much as
> the kid wants to know and i dont think it's a good idea to push.
>
> Thats true, but if they wont talk theres always other ways to
> communicate, for instance they could write questions down and the
> parent in turn can write and answer or find another book that will
> help answer the question. Do you think that would work well for shy
> kids?
No, in some ways that's worse because you don't know where your personal problems will be passed on to before you get a response. Just talking to your peers can get you a lot of information and with newspapers, tv and the internet there is plent of other information available. Of course not all of it is reliable, South Park for example isn't the best teacher.
> Novocaine wrote:
>
> Some kids just wouldn't want to talk to their parents though no
> matter how much they've read, i think you have to provide as much as
> the kid wants to know and i dont think it's a good idea to push.
>
> Thats true, but if they wont talk theres always other ways to
> communicate, for instance they could write questions down and the
> parent in turn can write and answer or find another book that will
> help answer the question. Do you think that would work well for shy
> kids?
No, in some ways that's worse because you don't know where your personal problems will be passed on to before you get a response. Just talking to your peers can get you a lot of information and with newspapers, tv and the internet there is plent of other information available. Of course not all of it is reliable, South Park for example isn't the best teacher.
Haldisa wrote:
> Thats true, but if they wont talk theres always other ways to
> communicate, for instance they could write questions down and the
> parent in turn can write and answer or find another book that will
> help answer the question. Do you think that would work well for shy
> kids?
It wouldn't have for me, i think the books thing would, ideally you give them as much education as possible without making them uncomfortable and while the parents would be the best way thats not always the possible.
> Thats true, but if they wont talk theres always other ways to
> communicate, for instance they could write questions down and the
> parent in turn can write and answer or find another book that will
> help answer the question. Do you think that would work well for shy
> kids?
It wouldn't have for me, i think the books thing would, ideally you give them as much education as possible without making them uncomfortable and while the parents would be the best way thats not always the possible.
Novocaine wrote:
>
> Some kids just wouldn't want to talk to their parents though no
> matter how much they've read, i think you have to provide as much as
> the kid wants to know and i dont think it's a good idea to push.
Thats true, but if they wont talk theres always other ways to communicate, for instance they could write questions down and the parent in turn can write and answer or find another book that will help answer the question. Do you think that would work well for shy kids?
>
> Some kids just wouldn't want to talk to their parents though no
> matter how much they've read, i think you have to provide as much as
> the kid wants to know and i dont think it's a good idea to push.
Thats true, but if they wont talk theres always other ways to communicate, for instance they could write questions down and the parent in turn can write and answer or find another book that will help answer the question. Do you think that would work well for shy kids?
Haldisa wrote:
> Books is a good idea, although I feel only if youre prepared as a
> parent to discuss whats in them once theyve been read.
Some kids just wouldn't want to talk to their parents though no matter how much they've read, i think you have to provide as much as the kid wants to know and i dont think it's a good idea to push.
> They are a useful aid in providing a starting point in conversation, but > are little use on their own as the child id bound to have questions once
> theyve been read that the book cant answer.
If they have then can ask if they like, i disagree about books being little use on their own for the reason given above.
> Books is a good idea, although I feel only if youre prepared as a
> parent to discuss whats in them once theyve been read.
Some kids just wouldn't want to talk to their parents though no matter how much they've read, i think you have to provide as much as the kid wants to know and i dont think it's a good idea to push.
> They are a useful aid in providing a starting point in conversation, but > are little use on their own as the child id bound to have questions once
> theyve been read that the book cant answer.
If they have then can ask if they like, i disagree about books being little use on their own for the reason given above.
Haldisa wrote:
> What if they had brought it up with you at an early age though rather
> than waiting til you knew it was something that causes embarrassment?
That's a tough question. I lived with just my mom for a long time so it would have difficult for her to talk to a boy about these things and then I wouldn't feel comfortable talking to my step-dad about it. If I'd always lived with a mom and a dad then maybe that would've been an option, it's too hard to say though.
> What if they had brought it up with you at an early age though rather
> than waiting til you knew it was something that causes embarrassment?
That's a tough question. I lived with just my mom for a long time so it would have difficult for her to talk to a boy about these things and then I wouldn't feel comfortable talking to my step-dad about it. If I'd always lived with a mom and a dad then maybe that would've been an option, it's too hard to say though.
sweet tooth wrote:
> whats the point any more you have adults now saying " didnt think
> it would happen to me " banging head against brick wall !!!
Im not seeing what this point is referring to, would it be possible to elaborate a bit?
> whats the point any more you have adults now saying " didnt think
> it would happen to me " banging head against brick wall !!!
Im not seeing what this point is referring to, would it be possible to elaborate a bit?
JFH wrote:
> We'd have been 10 or 11. I think that just waiting one or two years
> more would have been adequate. Though waiting would have meant we'd
> have been in secondary school so maybe it was best to see them just
> before going into a more grown up environment.
I think it probably was best before secondary, but maybe the videos arent the ideal way to transmit the information, perhaps another way would be more effective where the onfo can be absorbed without distraction from giggling classmates.
> We'd have been 10 or 11. I think that just waiting one or two years
> more would have been adequate. Though waiting would have meant we'd
> have been in secondary school so maybe it was best to see them just
> before going into a more grown up environment.
I think it probably was best before secondary, but maybe the videos arent the ideal way to transmit the information, perhaps another way would be more effective where the onfo can be absorbed without distraction from giggling classmates.
Novocaine wrote:
> Can't really add much to that, it would be the ideal way but thats
> not the way it is, you can't talk to a kid if they dont want to
> listen to what you're saying, i think i'd buy some books and let then
> read when theyre ready, i think it helps if you're not embarassed and
> books take away the personal side.
>
Books is a good idea, although I feel only if youre prepared as a parent to discuss whats in them once theyve been read. They are a useful aid in providing a starting point in conversation, but are little use on their own as the child id bound to have questions once theyve been read that the book cant answer.
> Can't really add much to that, it would be the ideal way but thats
> not the way it is, you can't talk to a kid if they dont want to
> listen to what you're saying, i think i'd buy some books and let then
> read when theyre ready, i think it helps if you're not embarassed and
> books take away the personal side.
>
Books is a good idea, although I feel only if youre prepared as a parent to discuss whats in them once theyve been read. They are a useful aid in providing a starting point in conversation, but are little use on their own as the child id bound to have questions once theyve been read that the book cant answer.
JFH wrote:
> I'd be too embarassed to go through everything with my parents.
> Talking with a stranger or reading leaflets is a much better option.
What if they had brought it up with you at an early age though rather than waiting til you knew it was something that causes embarrassment?
> I'd be too embarassed to go through everything with my parents.
> Talking with a stranger or reading leaflets is a much better option.
What if they had brought it up with you at an early age though rather than waiting til you knew it was something that causes embarrassment?
Page: