Is sex education inherently good or bad? The morality of sex education has been under debate over the past years since its inclusion in some school curriculum across the country and even during times when it is taught in families whether by parents or other elders. One side of the debate argues that sex education is a necessity in order to enlighten people at a young age about the effects of unprotected and premarital sex, thus claiming that sex education is basically a morally uplifting form of education.
On the other hand, there are arguments which state that sex education is morally wrong as it exposes young minds to the perversity of sexual behaviors, thus putting them at a higher risk of replicating the inappropriate things that they learn. Some people with highly conservative religious beliefs might suggest that one of the mistakes of sex education is that it actually widens the awareness of young people to things that they should be learning when they become older.
In effect, their minds that are yet to fully mature are taught with things that only the mature mind can handle, giving these people some sort of inclination to try things out for themselves out of curiosity. One argument underscores the presumption that teaching kids about homosexuality as part of sex education defeats the purpose of raising them according to the standards of their religion or of the will of their parents and cultural tradition.
Still, other people who are against sex education yet recognize some of its benefits suggest that the negative consequences of sex education outweighs anything positive that can be derived from it. While sex education may teach young people about the negative consequences of unprotected sex, it does not guarantee at all that they will be prevented from doing otherwise. That, in effect, leads to the criticism that sex education is a futile attempt to make people fit in the mold of socially construed decrees.
In essence, these arguments against sex education promote the idea that it is morally unfit to be taught to young people. However, there are arguments which promote sex education such as the claim that it emphasizes the necessity to abstain from sexual behavior until young people reach the age of maturity. There is also the argument that, by teaching the negative effects of unprotected sex such as sexually transmitted diseases, sex education helps in enlightening people and, therefore, preventing them from engaging in sexual behaviors that are not only perverse but are also destructive to one’s health.
It can also be argued that sex education as part of the school curriculum is an informative tool that is guided by certain academic and ethical standards, thus reassuring both students and parents that the things that they learn through sex education are not only appropriate to their level of thinking but are also devoid of malice and of the intent to cause harm to these students instead of doing them any good (Lindberg, Santelli and Singh).
In contemporary times, the rise in unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases also contributes to the argument that there is a need to put a stop to all these. Apparently, one way to promote such awareness is through the inclusion of sex education in schools. Another way is to encourage parents to teach their children at home about the ill-effects of engaging in sexual activities at such a young age and of certain sexual behaviors even when they reach a mature age.
From these points of view, one can say that sex education also has its morally uplifting strands that people can learn from. Whether good or bad, assessing sex education should be based on its own merits rather than using religious beliefs as the sole measure since such beliefs are not accepted by all people. Rather, sex education should be looked upon in terms of its own benefits and disadvantages.