Sex educations in our schools

Zaph

skydish79 wrote: »

It shouldnt be up to schools to be the sole providers of sex education, that should be up to parents to explain all their kids need to know about sex

I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but as has been said by others, many parents are either too uncomfortable to have that discussion with their kids, or they're under-educated about sex themselves and aren't capable of doing the job properly. This is why schools fulfil a vital role in sex education, and if it's going to be taught in schools then the schools have a responsibility to teach it properly and without any agenda or bias. Unfortunately there are probably many kids in this country being failed by both their parents and their school when it comes to sex education.

thegreatgonzo

We got quite a lot of sex education in my school in the early 90's. It started in second year and it went on for some time. I seem to remember 3 teachers being involved, science and religion and our extremely strict Irish teacher who read out and answered our anonymous questions which was great craic for us. We were given another round of it in 4th year too. I thought it was something that all schools did until a few years ago.

Eeden

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

We got quite a lot of sex education in my school in the early 90's. It started in second year and it went on for some time. I seem to remember 3 teachers being involved, science and religion and our extremely strict Irish teacher who read out and answered our anonymous questions which was great craic for us. We were given another round of it in 4th year too. I thought it was something that all schools did until a few years ago.

What sort of school did you go to? That seems insanely liberal for the early 90s! were parents consulted?

WinnyThePoo

I got sex education in sixth class. I remember one lad put his hand up and ask If there was anything wrong with masterbation?. The teacher replied "It's considered selfish".

AulBiddy

To be quite honest I never really felt I had a sex education - some woman came into talk about puberty and the whole technical side to sex and how babies were made. Nothing was ever said about STDS STIS, abortions, contraception etc. That was in 6th class and then we obviously had to do the whole technical thing again in 3rd and 5th year. I had to educate myself because I was an extremely curious twelve year old. It was a shock to the teachers in secondary when two girls ended up pregnant (small town big gossip).
In my opinion kids should be taught the basics of sex and how to prevent infections and disease and prevention against pregnancies and what to do if you fall pregnant - and most of all how it is not the end of the world or a shame if you do - at least thats my opinion anyway - yes it is bad for young girls to become pregnant but the girl should know that there is always support and help for young couples expecting children

--LOS--

sex education, let's see.....

In 6th class we learned about the reproductive system, we had to label diagrams of male and female genitalia, that sort of thing, nothing too sexy

In 2nd year we had a talk from an outside person about girly things (it was an all girls school), i.e. menstruation, which was totally laughable since it was years too late, 12/13 is the average age those things will start so that needed to be done much earlier, oh great you're telling me about something that's going to happen that already happened 2/3 years ago.

From my mother..... never get pregnant, I'm not going to be minding any child :P

From our SPHE class or w/e it was called...... we mostly just watched videos about the dangers of snuff (chewing tobacco) ummmmm how clueless were my teachers lol, omg so many american videos with close-up after close-up of hairy tongues, don't chew tobacco kids! That's also where I learned about these 'new' things called alcopops that were so dangerous because they were high in alcohol but didn't taste like alcohol. Many other totally irrelevant topics. My school was very odd lol (or not, for Ireland), I had to watch movies about people that had overdosed on heroin but nothing about safe sex, stds etc

Czarcasm

Faith wrote: »

I'd actually love to start going into schools and delivering a comprehensive sexual education program to junior cert students. But I wouldn't even know how to go about approaching it because there would be so many barriers.

You'd actually need to start a lot younger than when they get to 14/15 Faith and deliver a multi-faceted approach rather than just as RDM suggests the "scientific" approach. I would go the other way and help children understand human relationships first before I'd go about getting down to concepts they're completely unfamiliar with, because those are concepts they can't relate to, so they're not going to take in a whole lot.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What about just doing a completely "scientific/biological" approach to sex ed, like tell people how to avoid pregnancy and prevent std's all of which could be taught completely dispassionately without any need to actually go into the actual morass of morality and lifestyle.

You need to teach children that sex and sexuality is a fun and enjoyable activity, not turn them off the idea by teaching them in such a mechanical fashion. Sex is supposed to be passionate, emotional, not cold and clinical. You don't want them to avoid sex, you want them to learn about it. Therefore you would have to talk about the overall picture - lifestyle, ethics, morality, before you get down to informing them about STI's, etc. That's scary shít, and sex shouldn't be scary, not to mention the fact that there are any number of STI's that you could teach children about, and just "put something on the end of it", while it makes for a nice soundbite, it's not entirely realistic.

Give the facts about proper oral contracetive and condom use, and std transmission from other activities, don't bother going into the " sex is a wonderful activity" or conversely the "sex should be two people in a committed relationship" these could be left to a different class (at an older age possibly) or by the parents.

Again, that whole cold and clinical approach with concepts that children simply can't relate to. Do you have any idea the attention spans of most children when they can't relate to something? Hell even most adults have difficulty staying tuned in to concepts they can't relate to, and I wonder when you say at an older age, how would you approach this situation -

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hmm, wouldn't be too sure about that either, my son's only 9 and he has three girlfriends, two that he's already decided he's going to marry. You'll still have to teach your boys about responsibility, the same as you would any girls you might have!

And that isn't unusual for a child his age to see relationships that way, it's merely a reflection of the types of relationships he's been exposed to amongst adults. While I said last night that he's too immature for the banana on a condom talk, when I got to thinking about it afterwards, I realised that when ADULTS think about sex, we're merely thinking about the physical act, but children are actually exposed to the "how to get to that point" from an early age by observing adult behaviour, and while I never really thought about it at the time, my son has a rudimentary grasp of numerous types of relationships and sexuality, just that he's not quite clued in on the mechanics of the physical act itself so to speak. So this whole idea of teaching children about contraceptives and condoms, etc, before giving them an understanding of relationships, that's a bit "cart before the horse" IMO. It's clinical and it's clean and it's, well, it's efficient. Sex shouldn't be about efficiency, it should be about fun. It shouldn't be made to feel like a chore.

When you get down to it harm avoidance/risk avoidance is actually pretty bloody simple. physical barrier methods prevent std transmission if used properly (including for oral), oral contraceptives are effective at pregnancy prevention if used properly, don't do anything thats likely to result in internal tearing.

Soooo, abstain completely from sex then? Because that's the only way you're going to guarantee avoiding anything that's likely to result in internal tearing tbh. And speaking of guarantees, there's no contraceptive nor protection method is guaranteed to be 100% effective, even when used properly, though I'm sure you knew that much already. There's many adults don't, and just assume they're covered so to speak.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Sex education should be as medically correct, comprehensive and LGBT-inclusive as possible. Unfortunately that would be a gigantic pain in the arse to implement in a country with as many bloody Catholic schools as Ireland. :rolleyes:

Actually it wouldn't, but again, that whole "medically correct" just says "cold and clinical" to me, and surely under a comprehensive program LGBT issues would be included, but why would they have any more focus than any other sex and sexuality issues, and how would you even talk about LGBT sexuality without first exploring LGBT relationships? It's like telling someone how they get the figs in the fig rolls without telling them how they make the dough. Religious ethos is much less a barrier than it's made out to be here too tbh. Many people claiming "Ohh the 50's, the 50's, Catholic Church, all their fault", and yet, the RCC hasn't had to do a whole lot in the last 50 years to keep people ignorant. Why? Because rather than look at themselves, society would rather choose to pass the buck and blame somebody else for the ills in society that they didn't address. Religion isn't the problem, PEOPLE unwilling to address the issue of sex and sexuality are the problem. Far easier to say "It's someone else's fault!" though.

Faith wrote: »

I agree. I absolutely think it should be an interactive discussion, rather than a lecture. Research indicates that getting teenagers to complete exercises where they hypothetically plan through situations is actually really effective when the real situation arises. Rather than saying "Use a condom", you'd get teens to discuss where to buy condoms, how to overcome the embarrassment of buying them, how to discuss using a condom with their partner, how to put on one, what to do if it breaks, and so on. A 'dress rehearsal', so to speak.

Bang on, the practical, everyday situations approach, scenarios that children can relate to, get them talking about it, discuss it, encourage debate and inclusion of as many points of view as possible so that children have as broad minded and open an approach to sex and sexuality and human relationships as possible. You won't get ALL the children on board, and some WILL slip through the net, when you don't get the parents on board, but hopefully at least if they start discussions amongst their peers rather than the snickering over Viz magazine or thinking they can emulate porn, children will approach sex and sexuality with a far more open mind, which in turn will encourage the next generation after them.

thunderdog

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I got sex education in sixth class. I remember one lad put his hand up and ask If there was anything wrong with masterbation?. The teacher replied "It's considered selfish".

In a religion class in school it came up that apparently masturbation was a sin. Without hesitation a guy in the back of the class piped up 'miss, are you a sinner'.

Good times

Real Life

I remember our sex education class in school,
someone asked what a blowjob was and we were told its what the men do when blowing glass into shape in places like waterford crystal

hatrickpatrick

This might sound like an odd proposal, but is there any reason the facts of life have to be this "big reveal" all in one go just when a kid is about to hit puberty?

Most kids ask questions about where babies come from, why people kiss etc when they're far younger, and tradition is to either bullsh!t them or give them half answers to the question. Is there any reason not to explain to them - obviously only as far as they seem capable of understanding - the truth?

Why should humans spend a substantial portion of their lives being kept in the dark about one of the most central aspects of being a mammal?

Alf Veedersane

I remember when I was a kid asking my Mam what the 'no heavy petting' sign meant at the swimming pool.

Cue embarrassment all round.

floggg

Czarcasm wrote: »

I personally think that parents should be responsible for their own children's sex education rather than default to the token effort ham fisted method of ill informed delivery children receive in Irish schools. Even the way it's delivered is all wrong, as in trying to deliver a "nothing but the (misguided) facts please" method of delivery to a class of on average 20 adolescents who couldn't be less interested in delivery rather than discussion.

I think parents need to encourage discussion with their children about the issues surrounding sex and sexuality as parents are in the best position to decide whether their children are mature enough or even when they are mature enough to discuss some of the issues. I think the more children and adolescents are encouraged to be able to have open discussions with their parents, the less taboo and curiosity about breaking that taboo there will be for them.

I disagree that it should be responsible for sex ed. I think ultimately the State and society as a whole has an interest in ensuring all children receive proper and comprehensive sex education.

Ultimately, through teen pregnancies, child support, single mothers allowances, STI infection rates and associated health costs etc, it is I'm everybody's interest that all citizens have proper sex ed, and everybody pays to a certain extent when they don't.

I think even on public health grounds alone it's vital that kids are thought proper sex ed.

I think the tendency to focus mainly on the reproductive aspects is extremely misguided and short sighted. Preventing unplanned pregnancy is important but so too is preventing STIs.

There should be proper explanation of risks associated with all types of sex, not just penis in vagina type sex - so it should include oral, anal, Hetero and homo sex - as well as appropriate preventative measures.

That was something very much missing from ours, which was decent but didn't tell us too much we didn't know by 12 (got it in 6th class).

Czarcasm

floggg wrote: »

I disagree that it should be responsible for sex ed. I think ultimately the State and society as a whole has an interest in ensuring all children receive proper and comprehensive sex education.

Starts with the parents though floggg, in the very same way as parents would help their child with their homework in any other subject in school, and in the same way a parent takes an interest in every other aspect of their child's life. If you place ultimate responsibility on the State or society as a whole, they don't have the time nor the resources to ensure compliance with the guidelines set down in any program, and most people in society doesn't have any interest in anything that's beyond their own nose, until they are directly affected by it.

I think the tendency to focus mainly on the reproductive aspects is extremely misguided and short sighted. Preventing unplanned pregnancy is important but so too is preventing STIs.

There should be proper explanation of risks associated with all types of sex, not just penis in vagina type sex - so it should include oral, anal, Hetero and homo sex - as well as appropriate preventative measures.

But why all the focus on the risks involded and the "prevent this, prevent that, don't do this, don't do that". What's the first thing you did as a child when you heard "Don't try this at home kids!", well, you went and tried it, because it looked damn exciting! You don't want to scare children about sex and sexuality either, you don't want them to avoid it, and that's all hitting them with all the risks and none of the fun will do. You'll give them a complex and turn them into mini-hypochondriacs every time they have sex!

floggg

Czarcasm wrote: »

Actually it wouldn't, but again, that whole "medically correct" just says "cold and clinical" to me, and surely under a comprehensive program LGBT issues would be included, but why would they have any more focus than any other sex and sexuality issues, and how would you even talk about LGBT sexuality without first exploring LGBT relationships? It's like telling someone how they get the figs in the fig rolls without telling them how they make the dough. Religious ethos is much less a barrier than it's made out to be here too tbh. Many people claiming "Ohh the 50's, the 50's, Catholic Church, all their fault", and yet, the RCC hasn't had to do a whole lot in the last 50 years to keep people ignorant. Why? Because rather than look at themselves, society would rather choose to pass the buck and blame somebody else for the ills in society that they didn't address. Religion isn't the problem, PEOPLE unwilling to address the issue of sex and sexuality are the problem. Far easier to say "It's someone else's fault!" though.

While that sounds all well and good has anybody here actually received LGBT inclusive sex ed?

Not just the "being gay is ok kind" but for example the mechanics of anal sex, the need for not just a condom but also lube for safety etc? (I know there are comparable lesbian issues but no idea what lesbian sex issue are).

Also, in an environment where most LGBT teaches have to remain closeted in work or risk losing their job (and I know a number in that boat), it is difficult to say catholic ethos isn't a bar to a proper discussion of LGBT issues.

If they won't actually allow openly gay teachers, I imagine there will be issues in at least some catholic schools if you try and teach them the mechanics of gay sex.

maguic24

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I went to a co-ed, public secondary school and yeah that was about the height of my sex ed too (chapter in the biology book) and we flew through it.

I went to the same type of school and that's all we were told too. Pure stupid. We also had a couple of guys who had 'seen the light' come in and talk to us about chastity.

I went to college a total gombeen as my mam didn't bother to tell me anything either. I was shocked in college when they looked for every and any excuse to talk about sex and give out condoms. I was morto when a girl handed me a packet during SHAG week. Have to say, after going to DCU I got a rude awakening and thank god I did!!! I gave out to my mam about not talking to me or my siblings and she said she didn't want to 'embarrass us'. That's all fine until one of us gets preggers or gets a girl preggers!! >.<

maguic24

Czarcasm wrote: »

Starts with the parents though floggg, in the very same way as parents would help their child with their homework in any other subject in school, and in the same way a parent takes an interest in every other aspect of their child's life. If you place ultimate responsibility on the State or society as a whole, they don't have the time nor the resources to ensure compliance with the guidelines set down in any program, and most people in society doesn't have any interest in anything that's beyond their own nose, until they are directly affected by it.




But why all the focus on the risks involded and the "prevent this, prevent that, don't do this, don't do that". What's the first thing you did as a child when you heard "Don't try this at home kids!", well, you went and tried it, because it looked damn exciting! You don't want to scare children about sex and sexuality either, you don't want them to avoid it, and that's all hitting them with all the risks and none of the fun will do. You'll give them a complex and turn them into mini-hypochondriacs every time they have sex!

I agree. I believe their should be better sex education in school but it is the responsibility of the parents as well. I am actually so annoyed at mam for never discussing this with me. I'm in my 20's and she still gets embarrassed and laughs about it. Wrecks my head!!!

Lia_lia

We had a public health nurse come in. She'd talk to the first years and third years. The talk in first year was basically about periods. We got "goody bags" with pads and tampons. At the time most of the girls in my class were mortified! Omg periods!

The one in third year was a bit better. We got a talk about STI's and contraception and had a Q+A thing. Eventhough I went to a Catholic convent school there was no religious talk in it at all. We got more Goody Bags, this time with a form to send off to get free condoms, but our parents had to sign it :rolleyes:

We watched ridiculous anti-abortion videos in religion class in 5th and 6th year. Such a loada sh*t.

Czarcasm

floggg wrote: »

While that sounds all well and good has anybody here actually received LGBT inclusive sex ed?

Not just the "being gay is ok kind" but for example the mechanics of anal sex, the need for not just a condom but also lube for safety etc? (I know there are comparable lesbian issues but no idea what lesbian sex issue are).

Says it all really, doesn't it?

Thing is, you're back to the cold mechanical approach again, and you've failed to acknowledge that it's not just gay people who enjoy anal sex, there's plenty of heterosexual and lesbian people enjoy it too!

Also, in an environment where most LGBT teaches have to remain closeted in work or risk losing their job (and I know a number in that boat), it is difficult to say catholic ethos isn't a bar to a proper discussion of LGBT issues.

Well you can have a proper discussion without delving into the teacher's personal life. I'm sure NO teacher, be they LGBT or heterosexual would want that.

If they won't actually allow openly gay teachers, I imagine there will be issues in at least some catholic schools if you try and teach them the mechanics of gay sex.

Why would you need to focus on simply the mechanics though? I'm sure they could be taught the concept of anal sex, it's not rocket science, and it's only a tiny, tiny part of LGBT and heterosexual relationships. You're not trying to teach children how to be porn stars, you're trying to teach them about sex and sexuality. There's more to it than just the mechanics.

Mickeroo

When I was in leaving cert (2000) we had our religion teacher tell us not to use condoms and if we wanted to avoid pregnancy to only have sex at a specific time of the month. One of the girls in the class was outraged and told them as much but she was just told to sit down and shut up.

GarIT

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This might sound like an odd proposal, but is there any reason the facts of life have to be this "big reveal" all in one go just when a kid is about to hit puberty?

Most kids ask questions about where babies come from, why people kiss etc when they're far younger, and tradition is to either bullsh!t them or give them half answers to the question. Is there any reason not to explain to them - obviously only as far as they seem capable of understanding - the truth?

Why should humans spend a substantial portion of their lives being kept in the dark about one of the most central aspects of being a mammal?

If a child is old enough to ask they are old enough to receive a factual answer IMO. If a child asks a question they are thinking about it, if they are thinking about it they may have an incorrect theory about it and would be much better off knowing the truth. I have been given out to for this before but yes I am saying we should be teaching 5 year olds the mechanics of sex.

Alf Veedersane

I wish our Spanish teacher in 1st Year had taught me about sex.

Spunge

I thought we got decent sex-ed in 6th class, and that was like 15 years ago.

floggg

Czarcasm wrote: »

Starts with the parents though floggg, in the very same way as parents would help their child with their homework in any other subject in school, and in the same way a parent takes an interest in every other aspect of their child's life. If you place ultimate responsibility on the State or society as a whole, they don't have the time nor the resources to ensure compliance with the guidelines set down in any program, and most people in society doesn't have any interest in anything that's beyond their own nose, until they are directly affected by it.




But why all the focus on the risks involded and the "prevent this, prevent that, don't do this, don't do that". What's the first thing you did as a child when you heard "Don't try this at home kids!", well, you went and tried it, because it looked damn exciting! You don't want to scare children about sex and sexuality either, you don't want them to avoid it, and that's all hitting them with all the risks and none of the fun will do. You'll give them a complex and turn them into mini-hypochondriacs every time they have sex!

It SHOULD start with the parent - I agree.

But the state doesn't assume parents will teach kids how to count. It makes everybody learn maths just to be safe. Those whose parents help them will have an advantage but everybody will be able to count to ten by baby infants.

Same for sex ed.


And I think it's important to teach them about the risks, but that doesn't mean it has to be in a negative manner. Teachers are well trained in how to relate to kids (at least these days) so I'm sure they could find the right pitch.

Thing is, kids will perk up when they hear sex. If your teacher mentions the word blow job, you'll listen.

So you can communicate these things if you speak their language - which let's face it, when talking about sex, they learned from the adults in the first place.

And I agree it should be sex positive. I don't think educating about the risks is sex negative though.

The only reason I didn't mention teaching the relationship aspects etc is because I knew that is likely to be more controversial for people who see it as a parents job to teach them about sex.

Teaching how not to get AIDS or general warts is likely less offensive that recognising that kids will have sex will before their parents think they should.

maguic24

The little sex ed I got in school was similar to the sex ed clip in Mean Girls. Basically I left school terrified of 'willies'.

I Heart Internet

I recall there was an evening talk by a "community nurse" type person for us 6th class pupils. We went with our parents. I can't really recall what was covered. On the drive home, my parents (mother and father I think) said - "if you have any questions, just ask." I said, "Yeah, fine." To be honest, I was too innocent to be embaressed or anthing about it.

Secondary school consisted of a combination of guidance - skirting around the subject, it seemed to me in Religion class and the cut-and-thrust of the mechanics of it in Science (all before JC).

I recall one guy fainted during the Science lesson learning about people's bits. Same guy went down while talking about hormones as well, I think. We lost some good men...

We could do with having a more uniform approach to teaching SexEd. Even allowing for the fact that 90%+ schools are RC ethos - it would be good if they, at least had an agreed approach.

Edit: Regardless, responsible parents should ensure their kids know all they need to know. I'd like to think, when the time comes, I'll be able to step up and have a full and frank discussion. (Not say, "why don't you ask you Mam about that?")

skydish79

Zaph wrote: »

I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but as has been said by others, many parents are either too uncomfortable to have that discussion with their kids, or they're under-educated about sex themselves and aren't capable of doing the job properly. This is why schools fulfil a vital role in sex education, and if it's going to be taught in schools then the schools have a responsibility to teach it properly and without any agenda or bias. Unfortunately there are probably many kids in this country being failed by both their parents and their school when it comes to sex education.

So your making a basic assumption teachers be any more comfortable talking about sex

My issue is that schools get left with every problem parents have, an issue they are too "uncomfortable" to have

Schools dont/havent been resourced or trained adaquately to teach sex education

This is a health issue and should be dealt with by parents and the HSE

Frank Lee Midere

While I am sure that it wouldn't do any harm, I am dubious that sex education would teach modern teenagers anything they didn't know already. The mechanics for sure are covered on Internet sites. Condom use is going to be dependent on how cool the use is seen to be, but who wouldn't know how they work?

Cupcake_Crisis

I remember getting "sex ed" in about 6th class. Basically it was just about the female reproductive system in very vague detail. I think there was a tampon on display at one stage.

Then in about 2nd year (in an all girls school) we were informed that boys had willy's, a fact that half my year was already VERY aware of.

In my opinion a very comprehensive sex ed module should be made available in about first year. Prevention is better than cure.

thegreatgonzo

Eeden wrote: »

What sort of school did you go to? That seems insanely liberal for the early 90s! were parents consulted?

No! It was actually a former convent with a strong Catholic ethos. This is why I took it for granted that all schools did this. They did have a meeting with the parents about it first and my mother went. She told me that only one set of parents had strong objections to it.
I still laugh when I think of my Irish teacher explaining what a blow job was.

Czarcasm

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

While I am sure that it wouldn't do any harm, I am dubious that sex education would teach modern teenagers anything they didn't know already. The mechanics for sure are covered on Internet sites. Condom use is going to be dependent on how cool the use is seen to be, but who wouldn't know how they work?

I've known people Frank that have had difficulty opening the frickin' pack, never mind the actual proper and safe method to putting it on! And that goes for both guys AND girls, who when struggling to open the pack have been known to use their teeth, or try to pierce the pack with their fingernail!

While all credit is due for actually having the presence of mind and common sense to use a condom in the first place, it's about as effective as fcuking with a sieve on the end of your knob when you don't open the pack properly, let alone put the condom on properly.

And don't even get me started on the amount of girls I've met who are clueless about the variety of contraceptive pills and options available for them, that sometimes a more permanent solution might be necessary because they're completely irresponsible when it comes to remembering to actually keep to a schedule with the pill or even remember to take it in the first place!

maguic24

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

While I am sure that it wouldn't do any harm, I am dubious that sex education would teach modern teenagers anything they didn't know already. The mechanics for sure are covered on Internet sites. Condom use is going to be dependent on how cool the use is seen to be, but who wouldn't know how they work?

I didn't know **** going to college. I didn't know what a clitoris was.....and I have one!!

Also I am only 22 now!!! So not that long ago!!! And I went to a mixed community school....

hatrickpatrick

GarIT wrote: »

If a child is old enough to ask they are old enough to receive a factual answer IMO. If a child asks a question they are thinking about it, if they are thinking about it they may have an incorrect theory about it and would be much better off knowing the truth. I have been given out to for this before but yes I am saying we should be teaching 5 year olds the mechanics of sex.

TBH I knew them when I was ridiculously young, maybe 6-7, because I loved reading and when someone found the "zomg naked people bwahahaha" page in an encyclopedia in one of our classrooms, I actually went and read the text on the page as well
Was pretty funny when it came to my dad giving me "the talk" and I already knew most of the stuff he was talking about, he was pretty surprised

Semele

Ours was the reproductive system in biology and much the same in RE. Mortifying for all, mostly as the respective teachers had kids in my class! It was basic as feck though. Our RE one apparently dealt with the emotional side (ie: don't do it, don't even think about it or it will damn you to hell). This culminated with a piece of GCSE coursework in which we had to write a letter to an imaginary pregnant friend of the same age, advising her of her options. I got very low marks in this due to considering abortion as an option and not encouraging her strongly enough to baptise the eventual baby asap out of fear for its eternal soul should it die young. WTF, like? The worst thing being this was only in 2000!

JimmyCrackCorn

maguic24 wrote: »

I didn't know **** going to college. I didn't know what a clitoris was.....and I have one!!

Also I am only 22 now!!! So not that long ago!!! And I went to a mixed community school....

We had a VHS tape with a nun explain what a wet dream was and how masturbation was wrong.

We also had a science teacher say "I shouldn't say this but but as soon as an egg is fertilised its a life and abortion is wrong" in science class.

Took me a while to find a clitoris two.

It wasn't until I dated an American lass I got over the guilt and crap id been fed about enjoying sex and relationships.

That_Guy

My sex education consisted of a guy putting a condom on a fake penis. Midway through he stopped to take the angelus....

After learning about various STI's later in the class, one of the lads fainted and had to be taken out of the room.

That_Guy

That_Guy wrote: »

My sex education consisted of a guy putting a condom on a fake penis. Midway through he stopped to take the angelus....

Was he struggling that much with it? :pac:

maguic24

JimmyCrackCorn wrote: »

We had a VHS tape with a nun explain what a wet dream was and how masturbation was wrong.

We also had a science teacher say "I shouldn't say this but but as soon as an egg is fertilised its a life and abortion is wrong" in science class.

Took me a while to find a clitoris two.

It wasn't until I dated an American lass I got over the guilt and crap id been fed about enjoying sex and relationships.

Awful isn't it? We were made look at pictures of mutilated babies in our religion class and each of us was given a pro-life badge of a tiny pair of feet. I refused to take it. Whether your prolife or prochoice, neither opinion should be rammed down your throat.

I left school and went to college scared sh*tless about sex and really embarrassed when anyone brought it up. I thought even if I used all the protection under the sun I'd still get pregnant. >.<

Czarcasm

JimmyCrackCorn wrote: »

We had a VHS tape with a nun explain what a wet dream was and how masturbation was wrong.

We also had a science teacher say "I shouldn't say this but but as soon as an egg is fertilised its a life and abortion is wrong" in science class.

Took me a while to find a clitoris two.

It wasn't until I dated an American lass I got over the guilt and crap id been fed about enjoying sex and relationships.

maguic24 wrote: »

Awful isn't it? We were made look at pictures of mutilated babies in our religion class and each of us was given a pro-life badge of a tiny pair of feet. I refused to take it. Whether your prolife or prochoice, neither opinion should be rammed down your throat.

I left school and went to college scared sh*tless about sex and really embarrassed when anyone brought it up. I thought even if I used all the protection under the sun I'd still get pregnant. >.<

Jesus Christ, when I hear stories like these, I'm inclined to think that in some circumstances NO "education" is better than some completely misguided, ill informed, utter bullshìt agenda driven nonsense!

GarIT

maguic24 wrote: »

Awful isn't it? We were made look at pictures of mutilated babies in our religion class and each of us was given a pro-life badge of a tiny pair of feet. I refused to take it. Whether your prolife or prochoice, neither opinion should be rammed down your throat.

I left school and went to college scared sh*tless about sex and really embarrassed when anyone brought it up. I thought even if I used all the protection under the sun I'd still get pregnant. >.<

We were the same, given the option of punishment lines and extra homework or we could go to a class on why abortion was wrong which was just a slideshow of dead babies, some of which weren't even aborted, they were just there to scare you.

J_E

Personally I think it should be a mix of parental advice with a basic coverage by schools. It could be so much easier to teach in schools were it not for teacher's own agendas i.e the pro-choice/life thing which should never be morally explored, just presented.

My sex education was great - I had already figured out a lot myself through the internet (not porn, just actual common sense websites) and my parents bought me a great book which covered all the need to knows about safe sex, puberty, etc. Of course I was terrified when hair started sprouting but safe in the knowledge that I knew what was coming.

I was fortunate to have a smart, common sense religion teacher who didn't try to play the God game when it came to religion, it was a great atmosphere in the class, chilled out and reasonable, talking about contraception, debunking myths, etc. and science was the same except for a bit more laughing (the way our teacher said 'vagina' in a Carlow accent is still funny today)


The only thing I worry about from personal experience is sex ed for gay and lesbian people. I really didn't know the story there. I could probably pick out every part of a vagina and tell you what spots were good to go for but clueless with what to do with men. I just worry there may be men in particular that don't really understand sex and end up getting screwed without protection by someone who takes advantage of them (and we don't all like anal sex, it just seems like the 'done' thing when you don't know about it). I had thought of coming into schools to talk about it but to be honest it's a sensitive subject; a lot of parents don't want their children hearing that sort of thing if they can help it.


Think if we could sort out basic sex ed before including other groups, we'd be doing pretty well.

entropi

We had that in 6th class. It was a mixed school and we all had one hour every Friday learning about sex, contraception, pregnancy and childhood development from our teacher (the school principal). No questions were out of bounds and an answer for a question would be given if it was known. We were encouraged to speak up about any issues we had, we even had a folder of work we would contribute to each week and it was shown to our parents at the end of the year.

As it turned out, only one of the girls had a child at age 20, most of the others were a few years after that. Two of the lads became parents at age 19. Not so bad to be honest. We had our heads screwed on about childhood, sex and some aspects of parenting from a young age...it definitely helped.

Czarcasm

Cydoniac wrote: »

The only thing I worry about from personal experience is sex ed for gay and lesbian people. I really didn't know the story there. I could probably pick out every part of a vagina and tell you what spots were good to go for but clueless with what to do with men. I just worry there may be men in particular that don't really understand sex and end up getting screwed without protection by someone who takes advantage of them (and we don't all like anal sex, it just seems like the 'done' thing when you don't know about it).

This is why Cydoniac I would actually focus more on the relationships aspects of sex and sexuality rather than the mechanics of the physical act itself. I mean, if you're to go down that route, where do you stand on explaining the physical mechanics of group sex (threesomes or more, MMF, FFM, etc) - "Everybody take turns and you wait your turn"? It just doesn't make any logistical sense in the mind of an adolescent, and while I don't agree with the agendas of the likes of YD, etc, I also wouldn't be in favour of tipping the scales the other way either like sex is some free-for-all and it's all about "me and what I want" as such. I think you have to at least have to define some parameters as to how much you're going to be able to include in any program you come up with. Otherwise you could take up sex and sexuality as a whole curriculum subject in it's own right, and while sex and sexuality are important, it's also important not to lose sight of the fact that young people attend school to be educated in other subjects too that will be just as important for their social and career development. Pushing the whole sex and sexuality discussion is an agenda in and of itself.

I had thought of coming into schools to talk about it but to be honest it's a sensitive subject; a lot of parents don't want their children hearing that sort of thing if they can help it.

It's a sensitive subject no doubt, but I personally anyway think the above is an unfair assumption. There are many parents who take the responsibility upon themselves to educate their children in matters of RSE, and I think we have become a far more open society. We still have a long ways to go, but many parents of today's generation are more confused and frustrated by the lack of any cohesive strategy as opposed to just not wanting to think about their offspring having sex. They are far more open to the idea than previous generations, but some just don't know where to start, so maybe the issue is educating ADULTS about relationships and sex and sexuality before we can start educating children.

Think if we could sort out basic sex ed before including other groups, we'd be doing pretty well.

The problem is though Cydoniac, even if you read through this thread, everyone has their own ideas about what they think "basic" sex ed should be, based on their own personal ideas and experiences, forgetting that in order for RSE to be effective, it has to be based on the ideas and experiences of it's intended audience.

J_E

It's a sensitive subject no doubt, but I personally anyway think the above is an unfair assumption. There are many parents who take the responsibility upon themselves to educate their children in matters of RSE, and I think we have become a far more open society. We still have a long ways to go, but many parents of today's generation are more confused and frustrated by the lack of any cohesive strategy as opposed to just not wanting to think about their offspring having sex. They are far more open to the idea than previous generations, but some just don't know where to start, so maybe the issue is educating ADULTS about relationships and sex and sexuality before we can start educating children.

I'm talking the likes of anal sex though, parents don't want that sort of thing thrusted on them. Majority of sex ed assumes you are cisgender and straight. I know my parents, although open, would have been a bit weirded out by it, and they're the non-religious ones!

The problem is though Cydoniac, even if you read through this thread, everyone has their own ideas about what they think "basic" sex ed should be, based on their own personal ideas and experiences, forgetting that in order for RSE to be effective, it has to be based on the ideas and experiences of it's intended audience.

Well that's why I think unless there is a rigid curriculum set by the State, teachers and parents will always introduce their own ideas on the matter.

Czarcasm

Cydoniac wrote: »

I'm talking the likes of anal sex though, parents don't want that sort of thing thrusted on them. Majority of sex ed assumes you are cisgender and straight. I know my parents, although open, would have been a bit weirded out by it, and they're the non-religious ones!

With a referendum on same-sex marriage just around the corner, I think LGBT relationships and sexuality will come to the fore of it's own accord and make it that much more difficult for adults that are uncomfortable with the idea. I mean, you'll spend maybe what, one class talking about anal sex? And again, it's not just people in LGBT relationships who enjoy a bit of backdoor lovin', many people in heterosexual relationships do too, and as you quite rightly point out - not all gay people engage in anal sex either, but the relationship itself as a whole (no pun intended ) should be the more important focus - the relationships between people and how they form those relationships as opposed to a step-by-step instruction class on the many varied and interesting ways people choose to get creative behind closed doors (or outdoors even!).

The majority of sex education though should be working off the basis that most people are cisgender and heterosexual, because the majority of people are cisgender and heterosexual, and you really can't give 50/50 focus to sexuality merely in the name of equality, because all things aren't equal.*

Well that's why I think unless there is a rigid curriculum set by the State, teachers and parents will always introduce their own ideas on the matter.

They have one already Cydoniac, and tbh it's not worth a bucket of shìt. It's really, and I mean, REALLY basic stuff - children should know how to wash themselves and name their body parts as part of bodily integrity and personal hygiene before they start school, and yet that's stuff my child's class were being taught in first class, second class is all about the stranger danger and good contact/bad contact, but sure again, most children are well aware of that sort of stuff already, partly due unfortunately to increased paranoia created by the "pedophiles everywhere" media. It's not until the child gets into sixth class that they start being taught about reproduction, and by that time, they're already filling their boots with porn off the internet!


*That isn't meant in a negative way at all and I hope you don't pick it up that way, it's just meant in the way that proportionately speaking, you have to assign proportionate time to each issue. For example you wouldn't spend a whole two months discussing the relationships and mechanics of BDSM either, though you could spend decades discussing it and still only be scratching the surface due to it's complexity.

J_E

Czarcasm wrote: »

*That isn't meant in a negative way at all and I hope you don't pick it up that way, it's just meant in the way that proportionately speaking, you have to assign proportionate time to each issue. For example you wouldn't spend a whole two months discussing the relationships and mechanics of BDSM either, though you could spend decades discussing it and still only be scratching the surface due to it's complexity.

Not at all, good point. I would always consider it a more 'niche' subject area anyway, rather than a whole section of it's own. Think the emphasis on healthy sexual relationships and safe sex are probably the most important. I think the ideal is to equip people with the knowledge to enjoy sex but also avoid an unwanted pregnancy or STI, until they're ready for children mentally.

You could probably spend years talking about the latter! Way complicated :pac: