This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Education Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. AIDS Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kimiesha.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soymilkp20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mollyybakerr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the text (quotes added)

The impact of the rise in abstinence-only education remains a question. To date, no published studies of abstinence-only programs have found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse.[18] In 2007, a study ordered by the U.S. Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex (and use contraception) in their teenage years as those who did not.[34] Abstinence-only advocates claimed that the study was flawed because it was too narrow and began when abstinence-only curricula were in their infancy, and that "other studies have demonstrated positive effects".[35]

the use of the word "positive" is stating that abstinence results are beneficial, and that is a pro-abstinence POV.--Ainlina (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase you quoted is a paraphrase attributed to abstinence-only advocates, so including it is actually necessary to maintain NPOV, i.e., "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". In my view, this article cannot present only the views of those critical of abstinence-only education; that would violate NPOV. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But remember under the Entertainment special services exemption all except "brothels" seem exempt anyway. Maybe that is why there are tens of thouasands of tourist entertainment places and no brothels for tourists. The brothels seem to take a very low profile and mostly only cater to Thai's. Some bars in Pattaya however for one fee, typically 1500 baht ($47US) provide both the girl and the room upstairs and they don't seem concerned about the law.

So.. it seems to appease the Western moralists trying to impose their morals on Thailand, the Thai government very cleverly can say "Prostitution is illegal in Thailand". Yet the law is written (even if enforced) as to protect the activities that bring in so many billions of baht to the economy which supports so many families, women and children, and does little to change the sexual traditional morals of Thailand!

To a Westerner like me, that was very wise thinking!

http://www.sexwork.com/Thailand/legal.html

Notes :

This ambivalent sort of written law should be replaced with properly and as careful and clearly worded laws that still keep the existing social structure or stricture. The spirit of the law is not in tandem with the law and that always leads to all kings of SPIRITUAL abuse like that Carradine chaaracter's death. If brothels were legal and all prostitutes registered, there would be none of that sneaking around that leaves possibilities like this sort of deaths to occur. Tourists would appreciate this above board approach that Nederlands has. Much like schools do not teach in clearly worded manner about anime-based proxy predators and paedophiles who take drugs waiting for kids to watch anime THEN spiritually rape kids. The effect is subtle and sex education at all levels should include issue like this. That way informed choices by children and teens can be made. Some education on astral body and brain wave times AFTER sexual activity could be included, or even devices that inform of mind states so that antipodal deaths/or tech crashes do not occur when the person sleeps etc.. I am aware of the spate of deaths occuring that not a single governemnt of UN agency has deigned to write any useful material about to distribute to the general public. Some of us are more vigorous than others and when mismatches occur, deaths and disasters follow. COuld there be a safe reservoir of animals OTHER than a zoo which do not get slaughtered that should be placed beside a RLD for example? Rather than implanting neurotech or suppressingh via cellphones the natural libido of people, these organic methods should be used instead. I think some of the people who will rwead this sohuld understand what specifically *I* mean?

Emancipation of the libido is a civilisational issue that mostly prude governments lack objectivity to handle properly, even as some religions oppress and suppress libido or use the same to instil violence in antipodal nations etc.. Wheres that prize for psychic research for all the paragraphs of work on organic-biochemical-psychiatry I deserve? None? Some of us get poisoned by psyche meds instead for having an EXCEPTIONAL libido. Compensation for loss of mental peace for decades? Which country would accept SEXUAL ASYLUM seekers based on the above material?

http://malaysiandemocracy.wordpress.com/ (a wordpress site with more commentary on many issues, including essay length monologues on politics, ethics, sex education, sex work etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:4000:15:1C39:8F3B:8AEE:CB75 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to find Australia missing from the World Wide section. I'm not being jingloist, however most articles include this continent in a subsection. Just pointing it out =D Iciac (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So go ahead and add some factual content about Australia. Wikipedia is not written by some other group of people, but by us (which means you!). --Simon Speed (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this section because it is not significant to the general subject of sex education. Inclusion here is focusing the article on politics not sex education. It's also recentism and undue weight for a debate that is unlikely to have a lasting impact on sex education as a whole (the actual policies instigated by a new US President may well be relevant - but we won't know or have sources for what they are or how they impact sex education for some time). The section may be relevant for articles on the US presidential campaign and I suggest editors who think it is important to cover this somewhere in Wikipedia consider adding it to one of those. -- SiobhanHansa 19:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; would have deleted it if SiobhanHansa had not already done so. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny but distracting. I would like to see a modern image depicting what secular sex education looks like in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No response to my concern, so I will plan on replacing the image. Editors have had years to respond. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found several images. I have now uploaded File:Barbara-Hastings-Asatourian.jpg and I am in the process of adding it to the article. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point that this section is trying to make and I agree that this article needs to mention some arguments for Comprehensive Sex Education, however the presentation is not very professional and at least in my opinion does not belong in an encyclopedia, especially without any citation. Additionally, it seems like a series of slogans designed to convince the reader rather than to simply inform the reader. Beyond that, most of the words are capitalized for no readily apparent reason and "4 in 2 High School Students" doesn't even make any sense since four is greater than two. If this section is going to stay it either needs to be rewritten or cited. Zenintendofanatic (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, delete the list in the section or rewrite it.--Stanzilla (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Poland" section needs grammatical clean-up as the language strongly obfuscates the content.

The "Cuba" section is a CV. I could not find reliable sources on the status of sex ed in the country. I suggest it's deleted altogether.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.14.219 (talk • contribs)

The listed "citation" for the Cuba reference points to a website that doesn't exist; I'm deleting the section. Duncan1800 (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have information on how many births per 1,000 population there are in the US, age 15- to 19?--Nemissimo (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In High Schools, are the gym teachers required to teach Sex education? If so, why is it mandatory? If not, why is it not mandatory? I just want to know. Thanks.--205.211.16.254 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had sex ed starting in fourth grade growing up in mill valley ca but i do not know how normal that is but it seems weird that it says as high a grade as it says--174.45.157.36 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed non-notable commentary and blog sourcing added by a blocked sockpuppet. Please see Talk:Jacob M. Appel for discussion of spamming and sockpuppetry. Unless you can provide verifiable sourcing (i.e. real external links, not just source names and page numbers), please do not try to readd these comments without discussion and obvious independent consensus. Flowanda | Talk 07:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the claim that positions are mentioned in German sex ed doesn't actually say that, it merely says that the question whether "real men can tolerate cowgirl" (free translation) is dealt with by ProFamilia, which is a private association and not, at all, a school.

If my memory serves me right, the instructor, when asked a question to the general topic, responded that it's up to our own creativity and nothing he's going to elaborate (which might be due to the fact that we, as a class, tried to make him uncomfortable).

If said source is trying to establish "most schools teach the use of contraceptives", then it's a very, very bad source, as sourcing the official curricula would tell you that *all* schools teach that.

As a side note, it might be interesting that Sex Ed is mandatory, for everyone.

213.39.130.28 (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the anon who deleted this, and it's should be rather obvious why i did that. Also, the citation is most likely a fantasy. Jackson 2001 seems to not exist. (also, i'm quite new so i have no idea how to sign myself)

"One obvious[says who?] importance of sex education in the post-primary schools is that students want to know about human reproduction as they saw human reproduction as the most responsible sacred act of man.[citation needed] The students need to know that human life begins when fertilization has taken place, that the sex of the body is determined by the father. This information is particularly importance is attached to the male child[clarification needed] who would continue the lineage" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.75.106.157 (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've restored your version for now.

Also, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces). kyledueck (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph says:

Sex education refers to formal programs of instruction ... Common avenues for sex education are parents or caregivers, school programs, ....

I wouldn't have thought that parents teaching their children about sex would be called a "formal program". And in fact the article says, further down (under Overview)

Sex education may be taught informally, such as when someone receives information from a conversation with a parent, friend, ...

Thus I think we need to reword the paragraph, either to remove the word "formal" from the first sentence, and/or to explicitly distinguish between formal programs (eg in the school curriculum) and informal eduction (eg from parents). One possibility is:

Sex education refers to instruction on a wide range of issues ... Common avenues for sex education are formal programs run by schools, and informal teaching by parents.

Does anyone have an comments on this? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. I changed it similar to suggestion. Zodon (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Today, there are even mobile applications available to guide adult to child conversations i.e. The Birds & Bees Connection." Seems like an obvious advertisement for that app. Is that relevant? 99.142.7.63 (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a link to publicly available digitized posters from 44 countries on AIDS awareness & education, held in UCLA Library's Special Collections. It's a rich resource that I think others will find meaningful and useful, but I'm mentioning it here because I'm a librarian at UCLA. I had nothing to do with the creation of the project, but I still want to make sure that it's generally agreed by page editors that this doesn't represent a conflict of interest. Nafpaktitism (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be good to integrate more information about LGBT sex education into the article, rather than only having a small section on it at the end. Specifically, I would like to add info into the "Background" and "Sources" sections. Into the "Background" section I would like to add information on the ongoing controversy around including LGBT sex ed in the curricula, and into the "Sources" section I would like to add information about where LGBTs commonly get sex education instruction. What do you think? Saira Weinzimmer (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool with me. Go for it. We always like to feel included, or have information at hand. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks meteor_sandwich_yum!

Saira Weinzimmer (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me as well; I don't see why such additions would be a problem. However, in this article, if there is to be material on LGBT sex education in places other than the Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth section currently in the article, that section should be removed because it is then redundant and people will immediately go to that section for the LGBT material and therefore very likely overlook such material in other places; because of this, that material should be incorporated into other sections of the article. WP:Due weight should also be kept in mind, considering that the vast majority of sex education does not include discussion of LGBT sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Flyer22! Good point about due weight, I will concentrate my material in the Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth section and make sure that I don't add too much in other sections. I really appreciate your help!

Saira Weinzimmer (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The LGBT addition to the "Background" section can be better summarized. It doesn't need to go into the minutiae of what each "side" thinks, but just can just identify the main contentions (briefly). Also there are some vague mentions of what research says, but not whose research. The LGBT sex ed section can be beefed up much more without being undue—I imagine it could be the length of what its summary style article should be. I haven't checked the sources myself (or the edits for copyvio), but the information I have read tends to skew towards America, so I'd ask future editors to make sure the paragraph has a global perspective.  czar ♔ 18:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Saira Weinzimmer, with this edit, Jmh649 (Doc James) moved your material to the LGBT sex education section, and I agree with that move...per what I stated above about having that material disjointed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Sex education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010123-5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131010005614/http://www.who.int:80/inf-new/aids2.htm to http://www.who.int/inf-new/aids2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150814192320/http://www.nacoonline.org/NACO to http://www.nacoonline.org/NACO
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140119084911/http://www.unescap.org:80/esid/psis/population/icpd/sec7.asp to http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/icpd/sec7.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131205221346/http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend.htm/ to http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140308001327/http://www.montrealgazette.com:80/health/lessons+unlearned/9536789/story.html to http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/lessons+unlearned/9536789/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071208033127/http://www.cdc.gov:80/od/oc/media/pressrel/2007/r071205.htm to http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/2007/r071205.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131031195458/http://nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx to http://nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130614150001/http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf to http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051201052252/http://medicalnewstoday.com:80/medicalnews.php?newsid=30992 to http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=30992

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sex education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140714125612/http://thenationalcampaign.org/resource/emerging-answers-2007%E2%80%94full-report to http://thenationalcampaign.org/resource/emerging-answers-2007%E2%80%94full-report
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111218014241/https://nacoonline.org/Naco to http://www.nacoonline.org/NACO
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071109123041/http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx to http://nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sex education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120119104447/http://www.nacoonline.org/Naco to http://www.nacoonline.org/NACO
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071109123041/http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx to http://nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sex education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Sex%20Education%20in%20the%20US%20%20%20%20Policy%20and%20Politics.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/mar/24/sex-education-uk-teenagers-pregnancy-sexually-transmitted-infections Xx236 (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Sex education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.siecus.org/school/sex_ed/sex_ed0002.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928064000/http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.com/node/57 to http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.com/node/57
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709095150/http://www.avert.org/legislation.htm to http://www.avert.org/legislation.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620082038/http://scmo.org/articles/507/1/Cardinal-praises-dedication-and-commitment-of-Catholic-teachers/Page1.html to http://scmo.org/articles/507/1/Cardinal-praises-dedication-and-commitment-of-Catholic-teachers/Page1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/lessons%2Bunlearned/9536789/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206161722/http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1334 to http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1334
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401062410/http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/SexEdRort09_web.pdf to http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/SexEdRort09_web.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006102525/https://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/policy-briefs/policy-briefs/CSWPolicyBrief11.pdf to http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/policy-briefs/policy-briefs/CSWPolicyBrief11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060413043758/http://www.nvsh.nl/english/index.htm to http://www.nvsh.nl/english/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sex education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140119084911/http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/icpd/sec7.asp to http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/icpd/sec7.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810152902/http://www.dgidc.min-edu.pt/educacaosaude/index.php?s=directorio&pid=107 to http://www.dgidc.min-edu.pt/educacaosaude/index.php?s=directorio&pid=107
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.legalmomentum.org/site/DocServer/overviewofabs.pdf?docID=493

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Relevance: there seems to be a little relevance for the definition of "sex education." "Definition" can be changed to comprehensive sex education. Plus the citations used are at least 10 years old in some areas. 2) There seems to be a high representation of a view point in this article with worlds that suggest an opinion. Under evidence there are big block quotes without citations. It also uses language that pushes an opinion, even if it is the language of the author/article the editor is citing. 3) The lead seems to be missing what I would consider a key point of relevance relating to formal and informal education. It states the main ways in which sex education is passed on, but fails to mention informal methods such as peers, media, and common types of media. This is only mentioned later on as it states how in the mid-20th century it was obtained informally, but this method of education isn't solely limited to only the 20th century...? 4) I think there could be a section for abstinence only education, such as where it is represented and by whom. Giving it a whole section with time would allow for a more balanced article. 5) There are plenty citations missing. It is missing citations regarding the increase in teen pregnancies of the 1960s and later under the heading "sources" the author writes how parents should be involved (needs a citation). This is just one of many places missing a citation as a lot of this article is direct quotes. 6) structure: it is odd to have who supports what type of education in the lead of this wikipedia article. Public opinion and some countries under "by area" seem un-necessary due to the lack of citation and information. For example Thailand has no citations at all, so why do we have it? 7) some information is a bit outdated reaching as far back as 2002. (Rbuell (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

1) In the article "Smart boys" and "Sweet Girls," the authors argues how Thailand's sex education is considerably ineffective in that it lacks cultural context. This article makes note on what the sex education lacks, while also supporting 5 major changes to it, most of which have to do with doing away with western sex-education material. I would suggest adding ideas such as informal education being the preferred method in Thailand. I will add to the Thailand section describing how cultural context is important to consider, for example, in Thailand teenagers prefer the story based vignette approach. [4]

2) In the article "the evolution o sex education" the author argues that the sex education in Finland has been very comprehensive in the 2000s. I will add from this article the history of sex education for Finland. Some of the material will describe how Finland has curriculum called "Health Education" in which incorporates sex education. Finland also begins sexuality education at grade one. I will also incorporate how they have sexual health campaigns and fertility festivals.[5]

3) in the article "analysis of Public Policies for Sexuality education in Germany and the Netherlands" the author argues that the differences in how the US, Germany, and the Netherlands regards sexuality education accounts for the differences in STI and teen pregnancies between countries. I will be adding some information regarding how Germany requires sexuality education three times between primary and secondary school, while the Netherlands has secondary school programs such as "Long Live Love" and the "week of butterflies." these programs support talking about sexuality, self-esteem, the difference between boys and girls. I will elaborate this in the Wikipedia article. [6]

comment if you have any concerns please. Rbuell (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iniquity has tagged Sex education#By area for splitting into a new Sex education by area article. I agree this section is becoming overwhelming for the article here. We also have Sex education curriculum that is identified as the main article for this section. Sounds like here we should have a summary-style and there we should have the full details. Sex education curriculum#By area already exists with extensive detail. The article here has more detail than the curriculum article--seems backwards of the WP parent-vs-subtopic article relationship.

That article's content focuses on different areas, and has some contradictions where the areas are the same, so I think merging those two by-area sections somewhere is appropriate. And there is already identified a pre-existing target for off-loading the content that has accumulated here rather than a new third article on this topic. But if the by-area content is really extensive enough to split off its own article--and I think it overwhelms the curriculum article as well, I think that should absorb the by-area from both the main and curriculum articles. DMacks (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to edit a couple of the sections for repetitiveness and clarity, but really this whole article is in need of a massive edit. There are so many repeats and strange formatting decisions, like North America, USA, Canada, and Texas all having the same-sized header and some repeated information, and United Kingdom being linked to another page but also having a load of information for England and Wales, and a separate Scottish section. Lots needs doing here. Emmybris (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmybris: I encourage you in your ambition.

Can you please briefly (1-2 sentences) give your reasoning for reorganizing whatever you reorganize? Also I see you are new as an editor. Advice: make more smaller edits rather than fewer big edits, when you are planning a big revision as you are proposing. Thanks and please proceed. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Bluerasberry ! Yes, I am a new editor- I was brought here as I am currently conducting research on sex education and its history.

Looking at the United States section- should this information be removed (provided it is detailed on the United States-specific sex education article)? I find it unusual that Africa, as a continent, is given one paragraph, but the United States has a glut of information on various state-specific policy. Since there is already Sex Education in the USA, would it be appropriate to ensure the information here is represented on that article, and simply have a link to that here?

Please let me know if this is acceptable :) Emmybris (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmybris: Yes what you are describing is Wikipedia:Splitting. The content is already split - sex ed in the US as you linked - so the norm would be to have about one summary paragraph here with the {{main}} at the top of the section heading to direct readers to the main article.

Africa gets a paragraph probably because that is all anyone wrote, and other places are omitted entirely. This top-level article is a catch-all for anything which does not have enough content to split.

So move the content here to the other article. It is okay if it is messy - your redesign plan is spot on and you do not have to fix everything. What you describe is an improvement and part of the usual development process. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NeonHD7: Regarding the NeonHD7 edit of 20 August 2024, I would describe this as "not an improvement".

Here are my points:

• There is no need to state that "abstinence-only sex education ... focuses on sexual abstinence"; in case this isn't sufficiently self-explanatory, a wikilink to abstinence-only sex education is provided.
• The observation that these two approaches are in opposition, that's just fluff.
• I would avoid "comprehensive sexuality education" avoiding the extra syllables by cutting it to "comprehensive sex education". Perhaps adding the extra syllables is some kind of regional preference, but the only effect seems to be just to make it more awkward.

Fabrickator (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabrickator: While I do agree with some of your points, I am curious if you actually think the previous wording was better, it just sounded plain awkward from my perspective. The whole structuring of the sentence was ungraceful. It was bordering on becoming a run-on sentence. The main point of my edit was cutting the sentence and introducing more contrast. And if I could take it a step further, I'd argue that mentioning the US was unnecessary and very nation-centric.

I agree that "in opposition" is a bit fluff, but this was meant to be analogous to "is often opposed to abstinence-only sex education" from the previous edit. Nonetheless I will take that part out.

You and anyone else are free to improve upon my edit and its surrounding text, but I would advise against going back to the previous wording.

NeonHD7 (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]