I’m not the original person, but I was interested and did some digging myself, so here’s what I found. I’m primarily citing this paper which seemed to cite a lot of other papers to back up its claims, compared to many others, that just utilized a single survey’s results
The paper specifically mentions education all the way down to the preschool level, whereas many other studies didn’t do anything below middle-high school.
Parents, teachers, families, neighbors and the media all have important roles in the sexual education of children and give children sexual education from birth without even noticing that they are doing so. Studies have confirmed that sexual education is a lifelong process that starts at birth.
This is the key point: Sexual education is already effectively taught in many ways in non-educational settings, often with traditional heterosexual norms instilled. (e.g. general discussion of relationships and attraction, consent, mentions of people “trying to have a baby,” things like that) This is education that the respondents themselves did not consider to exist (the majority said they believed sex education of any form did not begin early in adolescence)
However, most of the general resources I can find around how official sex education curriculum are developed, how parents bring up these topics to their kids, and what kids are actually comfortable with discussing themselves, seems to point to an age-appropriate level of education, based on what they’re likely to encounter at their given age range. (e.g. a very young child may be taught to say no if someone asks to see their privates, whereas a young adult may then be taught how to properly use various forms of contraceptives, with the context of different sex positions, because that’s the age within which they’re most likely to engage in those different positions.)
It seems like the age-adjusted measures work best not because they necessarily bring harm if taught to younger individuals (although there’s significantly lacking data on this specific age range and being taught a more comprehensive sex ed curriculum) but rather that it’s more possible to teach it to students as they get older, because they form a larger body of existing knowledge around the topic from peers/media/family, that provides the context required to be more easily taught, and they become more comfortable discussing such topics as they grow older and have a larger existing understanding of them.
You could try teaching an extremely comprehensive sex ed curriculum to students who are much younger, but they would probably just be too uncomfortable to actually care/pay attention/truly learn, is what the evidence I can find seems to point to.
I hope they reply, but personally I don’t see any reason to keep children ignorant of biology besides our religions making us feel like sex is taboo and unnatural.
Obv we can’t teach these kinds of concepts to children who aren’t at a level yet to handle regular biology classes.
I’m not saying kids shouldn’t be educated on the biology, just that age matters and too young is associated in research with lifelong negative consequences.
Obv we can’t teach these kinds of concepts to children who aren’t at a level yet to handle regular biology classes.
Which I think we agree on. Teaching a 5 year old consent is proper, how sex works is improper. Teaching a 12 year old how sex works is proper, what various sex acts are is improper. Teaching a 16 year old the various sex acts is proper, especially if accompanied by a discussion of STDs, how to prevent them, and how to properly disclose to prior partners you have one.
Sex ed isn’t just one lesson and what can be taught when is a gradient based on age.
You know a sizable portion of teens have sex before the age of 16? Sex ed should basically be complete at age 14, which is approximately when most teens start/are consuming porn and some are starting to be sexually active.
Also, you should definitely start teaching what sex is to 10 year olds. For example, most girls have their first period between 11 and 12 years of age and they should know prior to having one what it means and how to deal with it.
I don’t really disagree. I wasn’t trying to put the ages out as being a hard absolute on what should be taught when. It was more just to layout the progress of how sex ed should be taught as kids grow up.
I wouldn’t say sex ed can be complete by 14. It’s one of those things that I think should be retaught a few times as kids get older. Mainly because 14yo are likely to forget the lessons they learned.
It’s seems pretty easy to understand some diseases can be transmitted, pregnancy exists, and consent is important at ages where you still wouldn’t necessarily be teaching about mitochondria. It’s embarrassing that even knowing basic names of anatomy and that different people have different anatomy is something that some kids still don’t know by like pre-K.
The hardest parts is just the awkwardness of those topics with today’s culture. I don’t remember how old I was, but I remember my mom trying to teach about STDs and pregnancy, and my response was like “just don’t have sex” and her reaction seemed to indicate to me that she disagreed but also didn’t feel comfortable actually saying anything positive about sex and just assumed I’d change my mind once I reached puberty (which was probably not long after). But not being willing to talk about the positive aspects means teaching that these topics are taboo and leads to children being unwilling to talk to parents when they should be (even if just to ask for things like condoms).
Oh I think you’ve added an “ed” where I didn’t (and didn’t intend to). Early sex ed is a positive. Early exposure to sex is not. Sex ed isn’t just about sex and there are aspects of it that can (and should) be taught quite young (like I outline above).
IE, you shouldn’t be educating your 5 year old on the finer details of what a blowjob is. You should be working with them on the proper names of their genitals and the difference between good touch and bad touch. Both of those are sex ed that should eventually be taught to everyone before they become adults. However, age matters.
As to the negative consequences of exposure to sex acts. I’ll point you to a page talking about child sexual abuse. Exposure is sexual abuse (and often a precursor to rape).
Showing a child porn or having sex while they are around. Those have the most definite negative effects. Stuff that borders that is trickier but, IMO, best avoided.
I’m less sure on if anyone has studied that (for obvious reasons). It would be more of “We are having sex and don’t care if the child can see” sort of thing. The normalizing and exposure of sexual acts with kids is what’s known as “grooming” and it’s what child sexual predators use to coerce kids.
Can you elaborate on negative aspects of early sex ed? You only provided the positive examples, and I’m curious now
I’m not the original person, but I was interested and did some digging myself, so here’s what I found. I’m primarily citing this paper which seemed to cite a lot of other papers to back up its claims, compared to many others, that just utilized a single survey’s results
The paper specifically mentions education all the way down to the preschool level, whereas many other studies didn’t do anything below middle-high school.
This is the key point: Sexual education is already effectively taught in many ways in non-educational settings, often with traditional heterosexual norms instilled. (e.g. general discussion of relationships and attraction, consent, mentions of people “trying to have a baby,” things like that) This is education that the respondents themselves did not consider to exist (the majority said they believed sex education of any form did not begin early in adolescence)
However, most of the general resources I can find around how official sex education curriculum are developed, how parents bring up these topics to their kids, and what kids are actually comfortable with discussing themselves, seems to point to an age-appropriate level of education, based on what they’re likely to encounter at their given age range. (e.g. a very young child may be taught to say no if someone asks to see their privates, whereas a young adult may then be taught how to properly use various forms of contraceptives, with the context of different sex positions, because that’s the age within which they’re most likely to engage in those different positions.)
It seems like the age-adjusted measures work best not because they necessarily bring harm if taught to younger individuals (although there’s significantly lacking data on this specific age range and being taught a more comprehensive sex ed curriculum) but rather that it’s more possible to teach it to students as they get older, because they form a larger body of existing knowledge around the topic from peers/media/family, that provides the context required to be more easily taught, and they become more comfortable discussing such topics as they grow older and have a larger existing understanding of them.
You could try teaching an extremely comprehensive sex ed curriculum to students who are much younger, but they would probably just be too uncomfortable to actually care/pay attention/truly learn, is what the evidence I can find seems to point to.
I hope they reply, but personally I don’t see any reason to keep children ignorant of biology besides our religions making us feel like sex is taboo and unnatural.
Obv we can’t teach these kinds of concepts to children who aren’t at a level yet to handle regular biology classes.
I’m not saying kids shouldn’t be educated on the biology, just that age matters and too young is associated in research with lifelong negative consequences.
Which I think we agree on. Teaching a 5 year old consent is proper, how sex works is improper. Teaching a 12 year old how sex works is proper, what various sex acts are is improper. Teaching a 16 year old the various sex acts is proper, especially if accompanied by a discussion of STDs, how to prevent them, and how to properly disclose to prior partners you have one.
Sex ed isn’t just one lesson and what can be taught when is a gradient based on age.
You know a sizable portion of teens have sex before the age of 16? Sex ed should basically be complete at age 14, which is approximately when most teens start/are consuming porn and some are starting to be sexually active.
Also, you should definitely start teaching what sex is to 10 year olds. For example, most girls have their first period between 11 and 12 years of age and they should know prior to having one what it means and how to deal with it.
I don’t really disagree. I wasn’t trying to put the ages out as being a hard absolute on what should be taught when. It was more just to layout the progress of how sex ed should be taught as kids grow up.
I wouldn’t say sex ed can be complete by 14. It’s one of those things that I think should be retaught a few times as kids get older. Mainly because 14yo are likely to forget the lessons they learned.
Exactly. Normalizing sex is about not making it a taboo, it is not about talking to everyone about it.
There is a huge amount is topics that aren’t taboo & yet we don’t really talk about them much/with just anyone.
It’s seems pretty easy to understand some diseases can be transmitted, pregnancy exists, and consent is important at ages where you still wouldn’t necessarily be teaching about mitochondria. It’s embarrassing that even knowing basic names of anatomy and that different people have different anatomy is something that some kids still don’t know by like pre-K.
The hardest parts is just the awkwardness of those topics with today’s culture. I don’t remember how old I was, but I remember my mom trying to teach about STDs and pregnancy, and my response was like “just don’t have sex” and her reaction seemed to indicate to me that she disagreed but also didn’t feel comfortable actually saying anything positive about sex and just assumed I’d change my mind once I reached puberty (which was probably not long after). But not being willing to talk about the positive aspects means teaching that these topics are taboo and leads to children being unwilling to talk to parents when they should be (even if just to ask for things like condoms).
Oh I think you’ve added an “ed” where I didn’t (and didn’t intend to). Early sex ed is a positive. Early exposure to sex is not. Sex ed isn’t just about sex and there are aspects of it that can (and should) be taught quite young (like I outline above).
IE, you shouldn’t be educating your 5 year old on the finer details of what a blowjob is. You should be working with them on the proper names of their genitals and the difference between good touch and bad touch. Both of those are sex ed that should eventually be taught to everyone before they become adults. However, age matters.
As to the negative consequences of exposure to sex acts. I’ll point you to a page talking about child sexual abuse. Exposure is sexual abuse (and often a precursor to rape).
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/inquiry/interim/nature-effects-child-sexual-abuse/effects-child-sexual-abuse.html
What do you mean by exposure?
Showing a child porn or having sex while they are around. Those have the most definite negative effects. Stuff that borders that is trickier but, IMO, best avoided.
Do you think drag queen storytime counts as porn that children shouldn’t be exposed to?
No.
A trans woman wearing a dress is not porn.
Okay, because “we shouldn’t give children access to porn” is the exact argument they use against LGBT folks.
I know, that’s not lost on me. And you are right to ask the question.
Does walking in accidentally count, or is there a minimum time limit?
I ask because some people act like a child accidentally walking in on their parents once ruins them for life.
I’m less sure on if anyone has studied that (for obvious reasons). It would be more of “We are having sex and don’t care if the child can see” sort of thing. The normalizing and exposure of sexual acts with kids is what’s known as “grooming” and it’s what child sexual predators use to coerce kids.