Sex Education

SarahBeep!

I was watching Midday today after they posted on facebook they would be discussing this article ---->http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-the-hse-fund-charities-offering-sex-advice-to-teens-843382-Mar2013/

Which was condemning this article ---->http://spunout.ie/life/article/threesomes


Where did you get most of your information about Sex Ed? TV, friends, internet, magazines, parents?

Are Spunout totally wrong to be advising teens on issues like this?

In my opinion, no. There are much worse things that teenagers could be doing and I don't see what's so wrong with giving teenagers correct information.

What do you think?

December2012

I didn't know what **** was, I didn't know what bollòcs were, I didn't know about cunnilingus, and plenty of other things, eg I didn't know about ovulation and cervical mucus discharge - I thought there was something wrong with me for years.

I think it's great that this information is available to teenagers.

Morag

Anyone who support Spunout, could you nicely let Minister Reilly know minister's_office@health.irlgov.ie why you think Spunout is important.

Likewise Minister for Children and Youth Affairs Francis Fitzgerald can be contacted here: contact@dcya.gov.ie if you want to let her know.

I think it's much needed, there is no national standardized sex ed in all our schools.

LittleBook

Michelle Mulherin is the bright spark who came out with this gem:

fornication is probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country

The site is aimed at 16-25 year olds and I can't see anything wrong with a state supported site which finally addresses questions on sex and sexuality in an impartial and frank manner ... all aspects of sex and sexuality, not just the ones Mulherin thinks it's OK to talk about.

What would she prefer appeared if a kid googles "threesome"?

She is just using the emotive "haven't we better things to spend our money on in these difficult times" and "won't someone PLEASE think of the children" to shove her personal agenda in our faces.

Addle

Fornication refers specifically to extra-marital sex.
You may not agree with her statement, but she's not wrong.

I don't agree entirely with TD Mulherin's opinions, but I am glad that she's brought the matter to public attention, and I don't think she deserves the derision she endures.

There is so much behaviour now that, though it is not technically 'wrong', is inappropriate. All down to 'social media' and the easy accessability of the internet.

When I was in 5th class, we were given sex education. I still have the little blue tampax sponsored booklets that were handed out to us somewhere.

It was very basic. A biology class really.
But it was all we needed.

The rest you figured out for yourself.

I feel sorry for kids now. IMO, they know too much, too soon.

lazygal

Addle wrote: »

Fornication refers specifically to extra-marital sex.
You may not agree with her statement, but she's not wrong.

I don't agree entirely with TD Mulherin's opinions, but I am glad that she's brought the matter to public attention, and I don't think she deserves the derision she endures.

There is so much behaviour now that, though it is not technically 'wrong', is inappropriate. All down to 'social media' and the easy accessability of the internet.

When I was in 5th class, we were given sex education. I still have the little blue tampax sponsored booklets that were handed our to us somewhere.

It was very basic. A biology class really.
But it was all we needed.

The rest you figured out for yourself.

I feel sorry for kids now. IMO, they know too much, too soon.

Do you think married couples don't have unwanted or crisis pregnancies?

Addle

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think married couples don't have unwanted or crisis pregnancies?

No.
Mulherin didn't say they don't either.

lazygal

Addle wrote: »

No.
Mulherin didn't say they don't either.

She referred to 'fornication', not married sex, as the 'leading' cause of unwanted pregnancy. Do you have any statistics to confirm what she said is true? Why single out those having sex outside marriage anyway, why is the marital status of those having sex relevant?

LittleBook

Addle wrote: »

Fornication refers specifically to extra-marital sex.
You may not agree with her statement, but she's not wrong.

Fair point

I still think she's a throwback ... ironically enough she considers the site to be regressive.

Addle wrote: »

It was very basic. A biology class really.
But it was all we needed.

The rest you figured out for yourself.

I think we can do better than that. I think schools can do better than that. But since they are not prepared to, probably because of their "ethos", the gaps will have to be filled elsewhere.

Addle wrote: »

I feel sorry for kids now. IMO, they know too much, too soon.

Any kid with access to the internet can access just about anything on the internet. I commend Spunout for trying to do provide information on elements of sex that others clearly can't bear to think about.

Addle

lazygal wrote: »

She referred to 'fornication', not married sex, as the 'leading' cause of unwanted pregnancy. Do you have any statistics to confirm what she said is true? Why single out those having sex outside marriage anyway, why is the marital status of those having sex relevant?

No I don't. Do you have statistics proving that what she said is wrong?

I just responded to the post above.

The topic is about sex education, not extra-marital sex. I hope anyone marrying would have been educated about sex before their marriage.

meeeeh

Hehehe the link is already down. I think there are too many different charities or organisations funded by state but I don't know if this one should or shouldn't be. It would be stupid to take the funding away because they dare to mention threesome. They could take it away if somebody else is already offering the same info. I would hate to see if content would be used as a cover up for cost cutting in HSE.

As for sex ed, I got info in school, teenage magazines and quite a bit from friends who stole brothers porn video when they were eight. That one wasn't overly accurate.

Addle

LittleBook wrote: »

I think we can do better than that. I think schools can do better than that. But since they are not prepared to, probably because of their "ethos", the gaps will have to be filled elsewhere

I think parents should have ultimate responsibility when it comes to informing their children about sex.
I don't think it should be part of the curriculum.
Is it?

lazygal

Addle wrote: »

I think parents should have ultimate responsibility when it comes to informing their children about sex.
I don't think it should be part of the curriculum.
Is it?

What happens if parents decide to tell their children nothing about sex, is that acceptable?

Lyaiera

Addle wrote: »

No I don't. Do you have statistics proving that what she said is wrong?

I think the point is that what she said was bloody stupid. Sex being the most likely cause of pregnancy is up there with accidents being the most likely cause of injuries and deaths being the most likely cause of funerals. (TDs being the most likely cause of face palming.)


Sex education is a good thing. Sex needs to be demystified and sex shouldn't be considered sacred.

meeeeh

Addle wrote: »

I think parents should have ultimate responsibility when it comes to informing their children about sex.
I don't think it should be part of the curriculum.
Is it?

Oh good god no. Since the state will be picking the tab for unplanned teenage pregnancies, different sexually transmitted infections and similar it's in state's interest to have proper education.

Btw my parents gave me a book which I didn't bother reading.

Addle

lazygal wrote: »

What happens if parents decide to tell their children nothing about sex, is that acceptable?

I don't think class time should be spent on such topics.
There are lots of things that some parents do or don't do that I personally wouldn't find acceptable.
I learned more about sex from teen magazines than I did from formal lessons at school or from my parents. I find that perfectly acceptable.

Morag

I don't think class time should be spent on religious indoctrination,
if people want that let them take their children to church, mosque, temple, meeting house or stone circle themselves.

Lyaiera

Addle wrote: »

I don't think class time should be spent on such topics.
There are lots of things that some parents do or don't do that I personally wouldn't find acceptable.
I learned more about sex from teen magazines than I did from formal lessons at school or from my parents. I find that perfectly acceptable.

So if SpunOut wasn't funded by the government you wouldn't have a problem with it? I don't think the government funds CBT porn, you fine with that as a sex education tool too?

lazygal

Addle wrote: »

I don't think class time should be spent on such topics.
There are lots of things that some parents do or don't do that I personally wouldn't find acceptable.
I learned more about sex from teen magazines than I did from formal lessons at school or from my parents. I find that perfectly acceptable.

So you think children shouldn't receive any formal sex education if their parents object and should rely on informal and ad hoc methods to learn about sex? What is objectionable about telling children and teenagers how their bodies work?

Addle

Were any of you given the 'Every Woman' book?
That's still at home somewhere too-unread, More magazine's 'position of the fortnight' being far more fascinating!

Addle

I have no issue with tax payer funding a magazine or advice.

meeeeh

Morag wrote: »

I don't think class time should be spent on religious indoctrination,
if people want that let them take their children to church, mosque, temple, meeting house or stone circle themselves.

That is the first thing that came on my mind when I read that post. Sex is hughley important and schools should absolutely use some time for sex ed.

Morag

We still need proper sex, sexuality and sexual health based education programs in our schools, the Every woman's book is a good one but it does not cover everything.

Addle

lazygal wrote: »

So you think children shouldn't receive any formal sex education if their parents object and should rely on informal and ad hoc methods to learn about sex? What is objectionable about telling children and teenagers how their bodies work?

I don't think that class time should be spent on sex education. I have no objection to educating children and teenagers on such matters.

lazygal

Addle wrote: »

I have no issue with tax payer funding a magazine or advice.

So if Spun out was a magazine and not a website that'd be OK?

lazygal

Addle wrote: »

I don't think that class time should be spent on sex education. I have no objection to educating children and teenagers on such matters.

Why shouldn't class time be spent on it? What happens if parents decide to tell their children nothing about sex?

LittleBook

Addle wrote: »

I think parents should have ultimate responsibility when it comes to informing their children about sex.
I don't think it should be part of the curriculum.
Is it?

I agree, but what happens when parents fail in that responsibility?

I see great benefits in including basic sex education in the curriculum at a certain age ... in fact, if I recall correctly, there already is some semblance of sex education included in the curriculum, I'll check with my daughter tonight what they've touched on. It might have been something specific her school did outside of the curriculum.

ahnowbrowncow

Why is this such a big deal? The government has spent €126,000 on a lot worse than sex education for teenagers.

Is it because sex is still a taboo subject for many catholics in this country?

BlatentCheek

I always felt I got adequate sex ed in school but lack of standardization is definitely a problem, I know a girls school where they were told that 50% of johnnies broke, presumably to scare them off sex but just as likely to encourage a more relaxed view towards contraception and grossly irresponsible IMO.

Spunout link is already down but if the worst stuff in it is quoted in the journal.ie article I have no problem with it, some youngsters have a lot of sex regardless of what they're told and making it safe is the best you can hope for. I believe that our teen pregnancy rates have come down considerably in the last decade or so and believe education in this vein deserves a lot of the credit, I bet less STI infection accompanies that trend.

FG draw a lot of their support from more socially conservative voters and need to shore up that support at the same time as being forced into legislating for abortion and possibly gay marriage so Michelle Mulherins crusade against sex education which takes a tone that may offend such voters is hardly unsurprising in the context. Given that such sex education prevents unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STI's I believe opposing it like this is also highly cynical. Her apparent attempt to use feminist language in her criticism by claiming it "promoted the idea that people could be objectified for sexual gratification" is also dishonest and cynical in that females are the biggest losers from unprotected sex resulting in an unwanted pregnancy.

LittleBook

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Why is this such a big deal?

The article has been on the website for years. It's only an issue now because Ms Mulherin has taken umbrage with it.

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Is it because sex is still a taboo subject for many catholics in this country?

Yes

Addle

lazygal wrote: »

So if Spun out was a magazine and not a website that'd be OK?

I haven't taken issue with the magazine, its funding, or advice.