Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development. That doesn’t mean you can’t start sex ed very early, it just means that what you teach is important.
For example, the first thing kids should be taught is the proper name of all their body parts. Call a penis a penis or a vagina a vagina. It’s also important to teach things like “Let mom and dad know if someone wants to see your penis/vagina”. It’s also important to start the concept of consent early “You don’t have to give a hug or let someone touch you if you don’t want to” and extended to “Ask first before giving a hug, it’s ok if someone doesn’t want a hug.”
As kids get older, you should absolutely be having frank conversations about what sex is. You should further have frank conversations about adults soliciting sex from kids “Jerry Seinfeld was a huge creep that raped a high school teen. That wasn’t ok”.
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.
Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development.
Depends on what you mean by this. If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably (qualified because I know of no actual research on the matter; nor do I know of any way such research could be conducted so we will probably have to settle with ‘yes, probably’ as the closest answer to accurate).
If you mean allowing them to be aware of it as something that adults do, and occasionally seeing adults engaged in sexual activity, then no. The behavior of shielding children from both even having knowledge of sex, and witnessing it performed by adults, is relatively new, largely taking hold after the Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy. The modern view of the past is bizarrely anachronistic in that we project prudishness and avoidance of sexuality to a time period centuries before it actually became that way.
Thus, it becomes clear that the avoidance of children being aware of sex existing and happening is a very specific cultural phenomenon that does not paint an accurate picture of actual harm to children, and is based primarily in christian moralizing.
If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably
There is NO “probably” about it. We have brain scans and decades of research proving it is EXTREMELY HARMFUL to children. There are children who’ve been in sex cults, including in the 70s, who have been interviewed as adults regarding this (to say it profoundly negatively affected them). The most common environmental factor for DID is childhood sexual abuse, and the severity of the DID is usually correlated with the severity of the abuse. Suicide is also extremely common in children with a sexual abuse past, as is heavy substance use in children.
Sexual abuse results in automatic behaviors like bedwetting recurrence after being potty trained, defecating in odd places or playing with feces, masturbating in front of others, dissociation, depersonalization, UTIs and other urinogenital issues… So much so that mandated reporters look for these signs in non-communicating (disabled) kids as signs they’ve been sexually abused to trigger investigations. No one has ever told these kids how to respond to sexual abuse - their bodies automatically do it. It is automatically harmful at a human instinctual level.
It’s 100% absolutely harmful and that has been proved by DECADES of research. I’m disgusted by that sentence, and the fact that you haven’t bothered to research that but researched THIS:
Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy.
Why the FUCK did 14 people up vote this shit, Lemmy?
I could be wrong and I apologize if so but it sounds like you are confusing children being aware or witnessing the existence of sex with them being forced or coerced into taking part. Normally when people talk about or so research about child sexual abuse they are talking about the latter and not the former, so just looking up child sexual abuse research wouldn’t be sufficiently specific.
I don’t know why you thought about kids when the conversation about normalizing sex came about. Are you ok? No one wants to talk to 5 year olds about sex but 15 and 16 year olds should know about it…
Oh because I’m well informed enough to know that when talks about sexual normalization come up there’s always going to be at least a few people that think that means normalizing it for very young children. It may seem obvious to you and I, it’s not to everyone.
Ironically, you’re fighting against ideas that were not presented by the OP or in the comments;and, in doing so you brought up the topic that you complain about seeing.
I agree with your position, but the OP was talking about in general society.
Obviously there are edge cases (developmentally challenged people are another example) but, in general, treating sexuality as a taboo subject causes a lot of harms that are not necessary.
I’m getting ahead of the argument and laying out what I think is the reasonable position. I’m not really complaining, just want to make sure everyone is on the same page when it comes being sexually open.
Some well meaning people have damaged kids because they try and push sexuality too young from mistaken notions of what it means to remove the taboos of sexuality.
Yes and no.
Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development. That doesn’t mean you can’t start sex ed very early, it just means that what you teach is important.
For example, the first thing kids should be taught is the proper name of all their body parts. Call a penis a penis or a vagina a vagina. It’s also important to teach things like “Let mom and dad know if someone wants to see your penis/vagina”. It’s also important to start the concept of consent early “You don’t have to give a hug or let someone touch you if you don’t want to” and extended to “Ask first before giving a hug, it’s ok if someone doesn’t want a hug.”
As kids get older, you should absolutely be having frank conversations about what sex is. You should further have frank conversations about adults soliciting sex from kids “Jerry Seinfeld was a huge creep that raped a high school teen. That wasn’t ok”.
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.
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.
Depends on what you mean by this. If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably (qualified because I know of no actual research on the matter; nor do I know of any way such research could be conducted so we will probably have to settle with ‘yes, probably’ as the closest answer to accurate).
If you mean allowing them to be aware of it as something that adults do, and occasionally seeing adults engaged in sexual activity, then no. The behavior of shielding children from both even having knowledge of sex, and witnessing it performed by adults, is relatively new, largely taking hold after the Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy. The modern view of the past is bizarrely anachronistic in that we project prudishness and avoidance of sexuality to a time period centuries before it actually became that way.
Thus, it becomes clear that the avoidance of children being aware of sex existing and happening is a very specific cultural phenomenon that does not paint an accurate picture of actual harm to children, and is based primarily in christian moralizing.
This is a disgusting comment
There is NO “probably” about it. We have brain scans and decades of research proving it is EXTREMELY HARMFUL to children. There are children who’ve been in sex cults, including in the 70s, who have been interviewed as adults regarding this (to say it profoundly negatively affected them). The most common environmental factor for DID is childhood sexual abuse, and the severity of the DID is usually correlated with the severity of the abuse. Suicide is also extremely common in children with a sexual abuse past, as is heavy substance use in children.
Sexual abuse results in automatic behaviors like bedwetting recurrence after being potty trained, defecating in odd places or playing with feces, masturbating in front of others, dissociation, depersonalization, UTIs and other urinogenital issues… So much so that mandated reporters look for these signs in non-communicating (disabled) kids as signs they’ve been sexually abused to trigger investigations. No one has ever told these kids how to respond to sexual abuse - their bodies automatically do it. It is automatically harmful at a human instinctual level.
It’s 100% absolutely harmful and that has been proved by DECADES of research. I’m disgusted by that sentence, and the fact that you haven’t bothered to research that but researched THIS:
Why the FUCK did 14 people up vote this shit, Lemmy?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=effects+of+sexual+abuse+on+children&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
Go do some fucking reading, you absolute pieces of shit
And OBVIOUSLY we should teach kids age-appropriate sex ed.
I could be wrong and I apologize if so but it sounds like you are confusing children being aware or witnessing the existence of sex with them being forced or coerced into taking part. Normally when people talk about or so research about child sexual abuse they are talking about the latter and not the former, so just looking up child sexual abuse research wouldn’t be sufficiently specific.
For real. Children cannot consent. Period
I don’t know why you thought about kids when the conversation about normalizing sex came about. Are you ok? No one wants to talk to 5 year olds about sex but 15 and 16 year olds should know about it…
Oh because I’m well informed enough to know that when talks about sexual normalization come up there’s always going to be at least a few people that think that means normalizing it for very young children. It may seem obvious to you and I, it’s not to everyone.
Take for example, this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Kentler
Normalizing sex is something that needs at least some nuanced discussion about what that means.
Ironically, you’re fighting against ideas that were not presented by the OP or in the comments;and, in doing so you brought up the topic that you complain about seeing.
I agree with your position, but the OP was talking about in general society.
Obviously there are edge cases (developmentally challenged people are another example) but, in general, treating sexuality as a taboo subject causes a lot of harms that are not necessary.
I’m getting ahead of the argument and laying out what I think is the reasonable position. I’m not really complaining, just want to make sure everyone is on the same page when it comes being sexually open.
Some well meaning people have damaged kids because they try and push sexuality too young from mistaken notions of what it means to remove the taboos of sexuality.