[ItsASecret]

And what exactly did you want schools to teach children? Proper cunnilingus technique? How to give a foot-job? What a safe-word is and when to use it during consensual S&M?

No, I'm pretty sure one school in America only needs to tell one one class of 15 year olds how to arrange a sex party (and what is expected at one) and civilization would pretty-much collapse here (Riots, chaos, cats laying with dogs, etc).

lol I was thinking the same thing. Anatomy will be taught to kids, pleasuring will not. The average 6th grader will know more about sex than a parent may want, its just the way things are now.

[Little]

Vague diagrams of uteri do not explain to women the complex makeup of their vulva. I wasn't even required to take a health class in high school (I took JROTC, which counted.) Other students were given an 8-week gamut of pregnancy videos and pictures of STDs.
I certainly don't think that students should be given specifics about sex, but being given information about their sexuality and actual health statistics would be nice. It's too bad that many schools are willing to forfeit giving their students a real education in order to get the abstinence-only money.

[Hopeless Dork]

I don't think they need to teach lifestyles, all that that would be a great addition as most kids learn of 'alternative' lifestyles on the internet pretty quick anyway. But I don't think it would be a stretch or too far out there (of course it is) to explain basic penetration/intercourse.

They explain the baby part but not how it gets there, I can see them not wanting to get into foot jobs and oral etc but to explain the parts of the vagina that create orgasm. Female orgasm isn't even touched on. They teach Male ejaculates woman gets pregnant, end of story.

[reilu]

i was talking about female anatomy, but also male anatomy now too, and it being taught in schools. (this post got a tad off topic, lol, but its alright) just teaching about it. thats at the bare minimum the basics of what i think should be taught. do i think that schools should explain the erotics of sex? not so much. but giving the very basics of it would be good. listen, im not trying to get schools to show porn and have really in depth conversations of intercourse, because lets face it, if a child didnt know about that, sex would probably frighten them a bit if they were exposed to that type of sex first, but what im saying is that the subject of intercourse needs to be touched on. explained.

im also in no way saying that this class should be given in elementary school. i was specifically talking about middle or high school. thats a much more appropriate age to talk about this subject. just helping them to understand their sexuality would help. again, im not saying show them erotic things. just teach them about their bodies, their functions, and what the results are.

i like the responses! keep em coming!!

[kms]

On a slightly related tangent, another thing that I think needs to be addressed SOMEWHERE with teens is a discussion about how physical attraction stems from hormones and the chemicals in our bodies, and that physical attraction does not equal love. I would bet a lot of doomed marriages would have been avoided and even unwanted pregnancies/teen parents might be reduced because people would be able to differentiate between sex and love.

Oh how I wish I had known the difference when I was younger - would have saved me a lot of confusion and heartache. I would feel attracted to a guy and then would believe that I loved him and was supposed to marry him. Now after a bit of life experience I've figured out that there is a clear distinction between the two, but no one ever told me that. It would have also helped me control my emotions and actions if I'd known that the overwhelming feeling from sexual attraction is based on chemicals. It's definitely easier to get over someone or at least get yourself in control when you know that it's just your biological processes at work!

[kms]

Oh and more related to the topic at hand: I took 7th grade health and sexuality was definitely not ever addressed. Then I was home schooled for most the rest of the time, during which my mom gave me a book to read with pictures and the basic explanation of how males and females develop physically and of course the internal process of how the sperm fertilizes the egg. After some awkward reading to myself, my mom asked me hurridly if I had any questions and I said no and basically threw the book back at her, wanting the awkwardness and uncomfortableness to be over (especially since my younger brothers were at the table - in NO WAY did I want any comments from them!). And thus, I had NO IDEA how sex actually occurs and definitely had no idea about how my body worked. In my world, sex was taboo, sex organs were dirty and it was a sin to touch yourself. Oh the joys of working through all that now as an adult.

And just to add an entertaining anecdote (well it wasn't for me at the time): my first sexual encounter was with someone who grew up with the same highly conservative mindset and background as I did... so let's just say he ended up using a flashlight to try to figure out where to put it (not that I could help out much lol)... and being that he wasn't even hard to begin with, it was a doomed venture from the get-go. Of course I didn't know that was a necessary factor either, lol.

[ItsASecret]

How much more about anatomy can be taught to a student from a diagram that already has everything labelled? I just dont get why people want more to be taught when there is a lot already shown. In any worthwhile diagram there will be the clitoris, labia majora/minora, urethral opening, vagina, penis, scrotum, anus, glans, testes, prostate gland, cowper's gland, bladder, urinary tract, epididymis, seminal vesicles, ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, and the structure of the female breast all labelled in a nicely organized colored pictures with spatial arrangements of everything. And thats just the basics. Tissues will likely be covered in the process because of the connection between for example a penis, vasodilation, and an erection.

On a slightly related tangent, another thing that I think needs to be addressed SOMEWHERE with teens is a discussion about how physical attraction stems from hormones and the chemicals in our bodies, and that physical attraction does not equal love. I would bet a lot of doomed marriages would have been avoided and even unwanted pregnancies/teen parents might be reduced because people would be able to differentiate between sex and love.

Absolutely agree, but there isn't many school around that offer psychology electives so I guess kids will be, for now, "doomed" to finding out the hard way which is a shame.

[kms]

How much more about anatomy can be taught to a student from a diagram that already has everything labelled? I just dont get why people want more to be taught when there is a lot already shown. In any worthwhile diagram there will be the clitoris, labia majora/minora, urethral opening, vagina, penis, scrotum, anus, glans, testes, prostate gland, cowper's gland, bladder, urinary tract, epididymis, seminal vesicles, ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, and the structure of the female breast all labelled in a nicely organized colored pictures with spatial arrangements of everything. And thats just the basics. Tissues will likely be covered in the process because of the connection between for example a penis, vasodilation, and an erection.

There is still the potential for problems with that though because kids still won't know what they're looking at unless it's explained to them. For kids who are visual learners that may be all they need, but that doesn't work for the majority. Plus, kids may have difficulty connecting the internal structure of the body with their own bodies because as you said, it's covered with tissue. Abstract thought and connecting the world around them with themselves, i.e. self-awareness, are higher-level skills that not all kids may possess or begin to acquire at the same time. So essentially, having the pictures is nice but they need to be explained in a way that makes sense to that particular age group.

[SinisterUrge]

I think needs to be addressed SOMEWHERE with teens is a discussion about how physical attraction stems from hormones and the chemicals in our bodies, and that physical attraction does not equal love.

Actually 'love' IS also a series of chemical reactions in the brain.

As much as I love the romantic ideal, the fact is that if your brain failed to produce norepinephrine or serotonin you would never feel the warm fuzzies about anything ever again.

[kms]

Point taken! I guess technically everything can be boiled down to a chemical process of some sort. So then those are two separate issues: first it would be good to inform teens that both physical attraction and love are chemical processes in the brain, and second, that physical attraction and love are two separate issues, and can occur separately or together.

And yes I also agree that the Western notion of love is highly idealized and highly unrealistic. No one will come save you on a white horse and you'll live happily ever after with butterflies and excitement forever... indeed it's more about chemicals, compatibility and making the choice to commit. Not quite as glamorous.