Sex Education in Thailand: Rhetorical Analysis

Sex Education in Thailand: Rhetorical Analysis

There are many things in this life that have to be taken at school instead of knowing them randomly or by experience. Sex is one of these things. Teaching sex as a course in schools to children is very essential and sex has to be taught in school not anywhere else. Otherwise, the children will be deviant. This study is unsuccessful in three main areas: first the issue of children getting information about sex from the media, secondly the issue of teachers feeling unqualified to talk about sex on the basis of knowledge, and finally, the place where the study was done would not assist the purpose of doing the study. The study was focused on Thai children but it was done in the US. Even though the study informs the readers a lot about the need for sex education in Thailand, it was week in these three areas.
The general subject of this article is sex education, a very important issue that means a lot to any person who cares about the generation of our children especially in schools. The need for sex education in schools has provoked debate on which is the appropriate way of doing it. In this article the objective was to research on the present situation of teaching sex education in Thailand and to identify possible barriers that would prevent sex education from being effective on the students.
In as much the purpose of the study was for good intensions, it proved ineffective due to several reasons. The use of celebrities in the entertainment industry to help children know more about sex was not a good method to do the study. Secondly the population sample for this particular study was inappropriate to fetch the right answers for this study. The study was done in the US and the hypothesis limits the scope of the study to Thailand. Thirdly, the involvement of teachers in conducting sex education in schools was overlooked because they are supposed to be trained first.
Educating children on sex is important because they get to learn to be responsible as they interact with their peers. At the same time this subject is important in management of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Teenager, pre-teen and even children have to be educated about their sexuality. This would prevent unnecessary teenage pregnancies that a substantial number of teenage girls go through. There are several ways in which this can be done without including the media and celebrity figures. The most important thing is to have sex education included in the school curriculum.
The media in this generation is known not to support moral behaviors especially in the entertainment industry. There are very few entertainment celebrities who offer good example about sex that teenagers can follow. However in the article, celebrities and media has been used as one of the ways in which students can learn about sex. From the results of the study, quite a good percentage of the participants agree that children can learn about sex through the celebrities and media. What it fails to realize is that the media and celebrities only portray one side of sex which deals with pleasure. It does not portray sex and its real purpose. It fails to explain the meaning of sex and when is the right moment for people to start exploring it.
The media is also very notorious in treating sex education casually. Considering all the implications this can have then the subject of sex education is one that should not be treated casually. Despite the fact that majority of the respondents did not support the idea of allowing the students to learn about sex from media and their favorite celebrities, the article still gave some implication that are leaning more towards this. “83 percent of teachers agreed and strongly agreed that show business created negative impacts on young people who lack experience in life”. This therefore makes the study ineffective.
Another aspect that makes this paper ineffective is the idea that teachers have to be taught about sex before they prove qualified enough to conduct sex education in schools. “The characteristic of teachers indicated that two groups “age” and “teaching experience” had a tendency to make a difference in quality of teaching performance”. Most importantly, it is not the education that matters most especially in a country such as Thailand. The education is supposed to supplement the experience that these adult teachers have concerning sex. This means that it is inappropriate not to include sex education in the curriculum just because the teachers are unqualified knowledge wise to teach about sex. The ineffectiveness of the study regarding this point is such that curriculum developers and the government will slow down the process of implementing sex education course in schools based on the argument that teachers have to be taught about sex before they begin teaching it.
In real sense teacher are very much aware of the entirety of the scope of sex education that students should learn in school. The only thing they need to learn is the methodology and the approach that is appropriate for teaching sex education. The teachers need to be encouraged to constantly talk to the student about sex even in casual occasions. The article fails to provide additional information to correct the situation. The appropriate solution would be that there should be institutionalized instructors to teach sexual education to the students in Thailand. These teachers should be experienced in teaching and have a proper background on how to educate this subject matter without causing the students discomfort. It would also be good if they had experience in the matter as to explain to the students what the two sides are experiencing through the process and what emotions and thoughts they would feel. Not to mention the side effects and the advantages and negative impacts of sex.
Finally the assumption made by selecting a sample population that has little to do with the research question proved the article in effective. This is because the response provided by the participants of the study may not be the true reflection of the response that Thai teachers might have provided. It could as well be argued that the results of this study are an indication of the state of situation in America and not in Thailand. Considering reliability of the data, if the same research was to be done in Thailand with Thai teachers as participants, may give a totally different result therefore lowering their reliability. It is also not clear from the article whether reliability tests were conducted to ensure that the measuring tools would give consistent answers irrespective of the location of the study or the selected sample population. In as much as it is possible for a research to be valid but unreliable, it would have been much cheaper for the experiment to be done in Thailand than in the US.
In conclusion this article showed weakness in three areas: the implication that children could learn about sex in the media, the implication that teachers in Thailand are unqualified to teach sex education, and the biasness in selecting a sample population for the study.
Changes that I made
I have used the previous conclusion as the introduction for this paper just as the professor had suggested. From this introduction I generally argued from the point of view that the study was ineffective. I based my arguments on three main premises that were already identified in the introduction.
I avoided by all means making a summary of the article but rather ensured that I analyzed the paper based on the three points that made the paper ineffective. These three points included: the implication that children could learn about sex in the media, the implication that teachers in Thailand are unqualified to teach sex education, and the biasness in selecting a sample population for the study.
The study result created implications that could be misinterpreted or viewed from a totally different perspective. Such loopholes created by the study outcome make the entire study to be ineffective. I therefore had to expose several aspect of the study that could easily be misinterpreted even though I only focused on the three main issues

 

Leave a Reply