this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
1069 points (98.4% liked)
196
5442 readers
2722 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can you elaborate on negative aspects of early sex ed? You only provided the positive examples, and I'm curious now
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.
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.
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.