This discussion starts from the point of view that sexual education classes should be given at schools. But does this mean that so-called “safe sex†should also be promoted within these lessons? Safe sex is the practice of sexual activity in a manner that reduces the risk of infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as Chlamydia and HIV/AIDS, typically by use of condoms. Safe sex also includes sexual practices that do not involve penetration.
Traditionally sexual education lessons have focused on covering the biological facts about human reproduction, and warnings against unsafe sexual practices. Often today sex education is combined with relationships education, in an attempt to place sex in a broader emotional, social and family context. But now every day more and more people talk about “safe sex†and how teenagers should be more informed about protection against STDs. Despite the worries some people have about whether sex should ever be seen as entirely risk-free, every day this so-called "safe sex" is promoted more and more as a solution for the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases amongst teenagers. But what if the promotion of "safe sex" has the opposite effect for which it was introduced in Sexual Education classes? Opponents argue that today sexual education and promoting safe sex are mostly considered the same thing, while it isn't and shouldn't be. They say it is one thing to inform teenagers about sex and it's risks, and quite another to promote and encourage them to use "safe sex" as prevention.
Safe sex education promotes values and practices that are offensive to many religious groups. For example, most safe sex education focuses heavily on condom use, which is directly counter to Catholic teaching. And promotion of “alternative sexual practices†can encourage people to see homosexuality as normal, which is offensive to many Christians and Muslims. In this way “safe sex†education forms part of a wider liberal attack on religious belief. Not only is this unacceptable to many parents and local communities, it is also an assault on teenage believers who are forced to sit through these classes.
Traditionally sexual education lessons have focused on covering the biological facts about human reproduction, and warnings against unsafe sexual practices. Often today sex education is combined with relationships education, in an attempt to place sex in a broader emotional, social and family context. But now every day more and more people talk about “safe sex†and how teenagers should be more informed about protection against STDs. Despite the worries some people have about whether sex should ever be seen as entirely risk-free, every day this so-called "safe sex" is promoted more and more as a solution for the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases amongst teenagers. But what if the promotion of "safe sex" has the opposite effect for which it was introduced in Sexual Education classes? Opponents argue that today sexual education and promoting safe sex are mostly considered the same thing, while it isn't and shouldn't be. They say it is one thing to inform teenagers about sex and it's risks, and quite another to promote and encourage them to use "safe sex" as prevention.
Safe sex education promotes values and practices that are offensive to many religious groups. For example, most safe sex education focuses heavily on condom use, which is directly counter to Catholic teaching. And promotion of “alternative sexual practices†can encourage people to see homosexuality as normal, which is offensive to many Christians and Muslims. In this way “safe sex†education forms part of a wider liberal attack on religious belief. Not only is this unacceptable to many parents and local communities, it is also an assault on teenage believers who are forced to sit through these classes.
