Talk:Sex education

Sexology and sexuality B‑class Top‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Unassessed

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Unassessed

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

NPOV issue with "positive"

In the text (quotes added)

The impact of the rise in abstinence-only education remains a question. To date, no published studies of abstinence-only programs have found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse.[18] In 2007, a study ordered by the U.S. Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex (and use contraception) in their teenage years as those who did not.[34] Abstinence-only advocates claimed that the study was flawed because it was too narrow and began when abstinence-only curricula were in their infancy, and that "other studies have demonstrated positive effects".[35]

the use of the word "positive" is stating that abstinence results are beneficial, and that is a pro-abstinence POV.--Ainlina (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase you quoted is a paraphrase attributed to abstinence-only advocates, so including it is actually necessary to maintain NPOV, i.e., "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". In my view, this article cannot present only the views of those critical of abstinence-only education; that would violate NPOV. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

I was surprised to find Australia missing from the World Wide section. I'm not being jingloist, however most articles include this continent in a subsection. Just pointing it out =D Iciac (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So go ahead and add some factual content about Australia. Wikipedia is not written by some other group of people, but by us (which means you!). --Simon Speed (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Presidential Campaign

I've deleted this section because it is not significant to the general subject of sex education. Inclusion here is focusing the article on politics not sex education. It's also recentism and undue weight for a debate that is unlikely to have a lasting impact on sex education as a whole (the actual policies instigated by a new US President may well be relevant - but we won't know or have sources for what they are or how they impact sex education for some time). The section may be relevant for articles on the US presidential campaign and I suggest editors who think it is important to cover this somewhere in Wikipedia consider adding it to one of those. -- SiobhanHansa 19:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; would have deleted it if SiobhanHansa had not already done so. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

Funny but distracting. I would like to see a modern image depicting what secular sex education looks like in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No response to my concern, so I will plan on replacing the image. Editors have had years to respond. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found several images. I have now uploaded File:Barbara-Hastings-Asatourian.jpg and I am in the process of adding it to the article. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 Reasons to Support Comprehensive Education in Schools

I understand the point that this section is trying to make and I agree that this article needs to mention some arguments for Comprehensive Sex Education, however the presentation is not very professional and at least in my opinion does not belong in an encyclopedia, especially without any citation. Additionally, it seems like a series of slogans designed to convince the reader rather than to simply inform the reader. Beyond that, most of the words are capitalized for no readily apparent reason and "4 in 2 High School Students" doesn't even make any sense since four is greater than two. If this section is going to stay it either needs to be rewritten or cited. Zenintendofanatic (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, delete the list in the section or rewrite it.--Stanzilla (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context and grammar housekeeping

The "Poland" section needs grammatical clean-up as the language strongly obfuscates the content.

The "Cuba" section is a CV. I could not find reliable sources on the status of sex ed in the country. I suggest it's deleted altogether.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.14.219 (talk • contribs)

The listed "citation" for the Cuba reference points to a website that doesn't exist; I'm deleting the section. Duncan1800 (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US birth rate

Does anyone have information on how many births per 1,000 population there are in the US, age 15- to 19?--Nemissimo (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it mandatory to go through Sex education in Canada?

In High Schools, are the gym teachers required to teach Sex education? If so, why is it mandatory? If not, why is it not mandatory? I just want to know. Thanks.--205.211.16.254 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States

I had sex ed starting in fourth grade growing up in mill valley ca but i do not know how normal that is but it seems weird that it says as high a grade as it says--174.45.157.36 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable reference - October 2010

I have removed non-notable commentary and blog sourcing added by a blocked sockpuppet. Please see Talk:Jacob M. Appel for discussion of spamming and sockpuppetry. Unless you can provide verifiable sourcing (i.e. real external links, not just source names and page numbers), please do not try to readd these comments without discussion and obvious independent consensus. Flowanda | Talk 07:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German source content

The source of the claim that positions are mentioned in German sex ed doesn't actually say that, it merely says that the question whether "real men can tolerate cowgirl" (free translation) is dealt with by ProFamilia, which is a private association and not, at all, a school.

If my memory serves me right, the instructor, when asked a question to the general topic, responded that it's up to our own creativity and nothing he's going to elaborate (which might be due to the fact that we, as a class, tried to make him uncomfortable).

If said source is trying to establish "most schools teach the use of contraceptives", then it's a very, very bad source, as sourcing the official curricula would tell you that *all* schools teach that.

As a side note, it might be interesting that Sex Ed is mandatory, for everyone.

213.39.130.28 (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird claim

I'm the anon who deleted this, and it's should be rather obvious why i did that. Also, the citation is most likely a fantasy. Jackson 2001 seems to not exist. (also, i'm quite new so i have no idea how to sign myself)

"One obvious[says who?] importance of sex education in the post-primary schools is that students want to know about human reproduction as they saw human reproduction as the most responsible sacred act of man.[citation needed] The students need to know that human life begins when fertilization has taken place, that the sex of the body is determined by the father. This information is particularly importance is attached to the male child[clarification needed] who would continue the lineage" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.75.106.157 (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've restored your version for now.

Also, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces). kyledueck (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Formal"?

The lead paragraph says:

Sex education refers to formal programs of instruction ... Common avenues for sex education are parents or caregivers, school programs, ....

I wouldn't have thought that parents teaching their children about sex would be called a "formal program". And in fact the article says, further down (under Overview)

Sex education may be taught informally, such as when someone receives information from a conversation with a parent, friend, ...

Thus I think we need to reword the paragraph, either to remove the word "formal" from the first sentence, and/or to explicitly distinguish between formal programs (eg in the school curriculum) and informal eduction (eg from parents). One possibility is:

Sex education refers to instruction on a wide range of issues ... Common avenues for sex education are formal programs run by schools, and informal teaching by parents.

Does anyone have an comments on this? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. I changed it similar to suggestion. Zodon (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Ad

"Today, there are even mobile applications available to guide adult to child conversations i.e. The Birds & Bees Connection." Seems like an obvious advertisement for that app. Is that relevant? 99.142.7.63 (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI Disclaimer

I just added a link to publicly available digitized posters from 44 countries on AIDS awareness & education, held in UCLA Library's Special Collections. It's a rich resource that I think others will find meaningful and useful, but I'm mentioning it here because I'm a librarian at UCLA. I had nothing to do with the creation of the project, but I still want to make sure that it's generally agreed by page editors that this doesn't represent a conflict of interest. Nafpaktitism (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to add info specific to LGBTs throughout article

I think it might be good to integrate more information about LGBT sex education into the article, rather than only having a small section on it at the end. Specifically, I would like to add info into the "Background" and "Sources" sections. Into the "Background" section I would like to add information on the ongoing controversy around including LGBT sex ed in the curricula, and into the "Sources" section I would like to add information about where LGBTs commonly get sex education instruction. What do you think? Saira Weinzimmer (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool with me. Go for it. We always like to feel included, or have information at hand. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks meteor_sandwich_yum!

Saira Weinzimmer (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me as well; I don't see why such additions would be a problem. However, in this article, if there is to be material on LGBT sex education in places other than the Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth section currently in the article, that section should be removed because it is then redundant and people will immediately go to that section for the LGBT material and therefore very likely overlook such material in other places; because of this, that material should be incorporated into other sections of the article. WP:Due weight should also be kept in mind, considering that the vast majority of sex education does not include discussion of LGBT sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Flyer22! Good point about due weight, I will concentrate my material in the Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth section and make sure that I don't add too much in other sections. I really appreciate your help!

Saira Weinzimmer (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]