Sex educations in our schools

Faith

I heard this being discussed on the ray D'Arcy show this morning and then read this full article on the Irish Times website: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/sex-on-the-syllabus-what-are-our-children-taught-1.1677796?page=1

Basically, sex education is supposed to be on the syllabus for all secondary schools in Ireland, but many schools simply ignore the requirement. Others try and tackle the topic themselves, while some bring in outside, completely unregulated, groups to do it. Many of these groups are "abstinence only" groups, and include some infamous names like Youth Defence.

Some staggering quotes from the article:

More than two decades after the liberalisation of condom laws, contraception remains a hot-button issue in some schools. We spoke to 14 current and four recent post-primary students. Of 13 who mentioned contraception, five had or will get information, two got scant information on contraception, two were told nothing, and four got explicitly critical messages.

The textbook continues : “The failure rate of condoms in preventing teenage pregnancies and STIs among teenagers is even higher since other factors, such as alcohol, affect condom efficacy. What’s more, condoms provide no protection against emotional, psychological, mental, social, and moral effects. Sex before marriage often causes guilt, shame, broken hearts, shattered dreams, bad self-esteem, lost innocence, bad reputations, family problems, feelings of being used, depression, regret for losing one’s virginity, embarrassment and humiliation.”

Now, I've actually done some research into optimum sexual education for teenagers for my masters, and research indicates that comprehensive sexual education is the best way of lowering teen pregnancy rates (Kohler, Manhart and Lafferty, 2007). Adolescents who received comprehensive sex ed also began having sex later than those who got abstinence-only programs.

So ignoring the issue of sex is the worst thing we can do, along with spreading misinformation. But how can we change this? How can we persuade schools that a comprehensive sex education program is needed, and given at an early stage (as in, before every has started having sex!).

On the other hand, do you disagree with me completely? Do you think sex education has no place in schools? Do you fear we'll encourage kids to have sex if we teach them about it?

Did you get sex education in school? Was it any good? Did it happen too early/too late?

I'd love to get an idea of how parents and teachers feel about this too.

I'd love to get a good discussion going about this because I feel so passionate about it. I personally feel that secondary school students should be provided with the full facts so that they can act in confidence when the time comes, rather than pretending that, if we don't talk about it, they won't do it.

rawn

My sex education in school was in either first or second year, given by our tutor who giggled with embarrassment so much she had to stop by the time she mentioned the word "penis" and it was never brought up again. Tbh I would have benefited personally from a bit more info as we didn't have internet access at home at the time to ask questions (this was only 00/01, mind, but still not many kids had access to a computer with internet) and I was annoyed about it because I felt too embarrassed to ask anyone questions, I just had to wait to find out on my own Having said that, there were some students who were sexually active around that time but there were no pregnancies all through to 6th year so I guess the silly bints had a bit of cop on without being educated formally about it.

awec

IMO the government need to grow a set when it comes to issues like this. But ultimately they are too afraid of upsetting the wrong people - the fact that anyone is able to go into a school and give messages against contraception is outrageous.

Zaph

I went to a Christian Brothers school in the 80s. Sex education consisted of the reproductive system chapter in our science book, and we had to wait until 3rd year to cover it. We usually spent at least a week on each chapter, but I seem to remember that one being completed in about 3 days. And the sad thing is that probably wasn't atypical of sex education in Ireland at that time. The fact that it is included on the syllabus now is a huge leap forward from those days. All they need to do now is get everyone teaching the same thing.

ferretone

I switched schools partway through secondary. We'd already had SE in the first school, which was a girls'-only school, and quite honestly they did an excellent job, thoroughly comprehensive, despite the fact that this was in the '80s, and a convent school to boot. The other school was mixed, and they had the course a little later, so I got it again. I think that seemed quite good too, but unfortunately it was difficult to tell, as the boys scarcely let the teacher get a word in, for all the giggling and slagging!

shruikan2553

We learnt about puberty but not what to do with our bits once the blood went to them!

Why is it the schools responsibility, one of my daughter was subject to a batty talk by an outside group brought in by the school, other parents and myself complained, the school had not realised what exactly the talk was going to be like.

Why are parents not doing this it is part of parenting, and parents should not expect to pawn it off on to the school it is primarily their responsibility to educate their children and to do it when it is just information and before they here some vulgar distorted explanation form another child who thinks they know every thing, none of this nonsense that they don't want to spoil the child's innocence!!!! Why is sexual knowledge assonated with the loss of innocence in the first place it is such and unhealthy attitude.

Legs.Eleven

Zaph wrote: »

I went to a Christian Brothers school in the 80s. Sex education consisted of the reproductive system chapter in our science book, and we had to wait until 3rd year to cover it. We usually spent at least a week on each chapter, but I seem to remember that one being completed in about 3 days. And the sad thing is that probably wasn't atypical of sex education in Ireland at that time. The fact that it is included on the syllabus now is a huge leap forward from those days. All they need to do now is get everyone teaching the same thing.

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. We were also made watch a dusty old VHS video of an illegal abortion in a class called pastrol care, but a load of us did a walk out. Everything since then has been trial and error. I agree sex ed is absolutely essential and I really hope things have changed to some degree since.

shopaholic01

My sex education consisted of a nun hand drawing male and female genetalia. :rolleyes:


All students should receive detailed sex ed, including unbiased information on contraception, STIs, relationships and sexuality. They should be encouraged to wait until they are emotionally mature enough to deal with having sex, instead of focusing on the year on their birth cert.

catallus

The idea that condoms are the only way to limit sexually transmitted disease, without any grounding in moral teaching is a facetious lie.

Any educational approach needs to promote the idea of abstinence, (understood as not being overly promiscuous and treating sex with the respect it deserves as a human practice that has repercussions for everyone, especially the impressionable young).

Legs.Eleven

mariaalice wrote: »

Why is it the schools responsibility, one of my daughter was subject to a batty talk by an outside group brought in by the school, other parents and myself complained, the school had not realised what exactly the talk was going to be like.

Why are parents not doing this it is part of parenting, and parents should not expect to pawn it off on to the school it is primarily their responsibility to educate their children and to do it when it is just information and before they here some vulgar distorted explanation form another child who thinks they know every thing, none of this nonsense that they don't want to spoil the child's innocence!!!! Why is sexual knowledge assonated with the loss of innocence in the first place it is such and unhealthy attitude.

Well ideally it would be the parents responsibility but how can you ensure it will happen? What about students whose parents simply don't give a flying fcuk, for example? At least if the schools hold classes on it, you can ensure it's reaching a wider audience, so to speak.

Eeden

My child (in an Educate Together primary school) had a very good sex education programme in 6th class. But parents were consulted to an unbelievable degree - we were given a choice of programmes beforehand and thankfully, we opted for the most comprehensive one. Parents who weren't happy with it could refuse to let their child participate, but I don't think any of them did. The kids were allowed to ask (by way of a secret ballot each week) anything they wanted, and the co-ordinator of the class would email the questions to all of the parents, telling them the proposed answer.

I think part of the problem is with Catholic schools and with parents who themselves went to Catholic schools who still have The Guilt. They seem to have the idea that letting children know that sex exists means they will become curious (when they wouldn't otherwise be ??) and might start experimenting. Of course, you could argue that the Catholic Church had its reasons for keeping sex such a secret.... but I'll leave that for now.

Now, some of the parents in the ET school were also a bit wary - especially those whose children were the oldest in their families, interestingly enough. Those whose children had older siblings were considerably more relaxed.

The Backwards Man

It was the school chaplain who was our Sex Ed teacher. First morning he wheeled in a TV, stood nervously in front of the class, announced 'Ah, sure yous know more about it than me', and we spent the rest of the classes watching This Morning with Richard and Judy

GarIT

There is a bias here which a lot of people especially radio shows don't notice. We had great sex ed but when surveyed over half the class said we got very little or none at all. The group that said we got none would appear to be the group that just took the piss and didn't listen.

Femme_Fatale

I think a good start would be to stop calling ourselves sexually repressed and prudish and suffering from catholic guilt, the usual stuff that's trotted out by Irish people referring to everyone but themselves and their friends.
"We're" not. Self flagellation leads to self fulfilling prophecy.

Professey Chin

I got 2 classes in 1st year. Those classes were then replaced with religion. Last I heard about it in school.

Unknown Soldier

It is the job of the parents. Years ago it was handed off to the schools and church.

It is a natural thing that should be explained to kids when it is felt necessary, like "you know who" not really existing at a certain time of the year.

PopePalpatine

catallus wrote: »

The idea that condoms are the only way to limit sexually transmitted disease, without any grounding in moral teaching is a facetious lie.

Any educational approach needs to promote the idea of abstinence, (understood as not being overly promiscuous and treating sex with the respect it deserves as a human practice that has repercussions for everyone, especially the impressionable young).

Oh, I know where this is going.

Sex education centred around abstinence don't work, especially when they're heavily grounded in moralistic bullshit.

hairyprincess

Heard this discussion too. There is still hugely backward notions on the part of parents regarding sex education. I know parents in their 30's and early 40's who refuse to talk to their kids about it. They are happy for them to learn from their peers or from inappropriate TV programmes for their age.

The woman whose comment Ray read out who said she collected her child early from school because she didn't want her taking poster really shocked me. The child was Junior (out senior) infants and they were learning the correct terms for the body parts, she believed that that was sexualising the kids.

I really feel it is a parents responsibility to educate their child on their body and how to look after it, but as todays discussion showed it has to fall on the shoulders of the schools.

Faith

Zaph wrote: »

The fact that it is included on the syllabus now is a huge leap forward from those days. All they need to do now is get everyone teaching the same thing.

Absolutely, it's great that it's now on the syllabus. The next step is to make it mandatory.

mariaalice wrote: »

Why is it the schools responsibility, one of my daughter was subject to a batty talk by an outside group brought in by the school, other parents and myself complained, the school had not realised what exactly the talk was going to be like.

Why are parents not doing this it is part of parenting, and parents should not expect to pawn it off on to the school it is primarily their responsibility to educate their children and to do it when it is just information and before they here some vulgar distorted explanation form another child who thinks they know every thing, none of this nonsense that they don't want to spoil the child's innocence!!!! Why is sexual knowledge assonated with the loss of innocence in the first place it is such and unhealthy attitude.

A lot of people are just too embarrassed to talk about it. At least if it's done it schools, you've got someone who is ideally happy to talk about it all, and you can teach dozens at the same time.

Ideally, it should be parents, I agree. My mum told me everything I needed to know at a young enough age, and I never rushed into anything sexually or had any doubts about what happened. On the other hand, my best friend's mum never even told her what a period is.

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.

P_1

Had a one day class about it in primary school presented by an external 'teacher' that didn't have too much of a bias, admittedly it was delivered in Irish so perhaps the scope for bias was limited (attended a Gealscoil) and none whatsoever in secondary (VEC).

JupiterKid

catallus wrote: »

The idea that condoms are the only way to limit sexually transmitted disease, without any grounding in moral teaching is a facetious lie.

Any educational approach needs to promote the idea of abstinence, (understood as not being overly promiscuous and treating sex with the respect it deserves as a human practice that has repercussions for everyone, especially the impressionable young).

The 1950s are calling...

Pumpkinseeds

I was born in the 70's and my parents idea of sex education was to leave a book on my bed called Girls growing up' after I had my first period. A week later my mother asked if I had any questions, naturally I said no.

At school it was pretty much diagrams in 3rd year and had more of a get it out of the way approach than any real attempt at sex ed. I think it should be taught in schools and taught properly, including homosexuality and transgender. An all inclusive approach is what's needed, by competent teachers who aren't embarrassed by the subject.

Faith

Faith wrote: »

Absolutely, it's great that it's now on the syllabus. The next step is to make it mandatory.



A lot of people are just too embarrassed to talk about it. At least if it's done it schools, you've got someone who is ideally happy to talk about it all, and you can teach dozens at the same time.

Ideally, it should be parents, I agree. My mum told me everything I needed to know at a young enough age, and I never rushed into anything sexually or had any doubts about what happened. On the other hand, my best friend's mum never even told her what a period is.

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.

I am sure you would be fantastic at it if you ever got the job.

Although I fully support comprehensive sex education human nature being what it is people will still make fools of themselves over love and sex it is what make us the imperfect humans we are.

There is no escaping the pain of human relationships I am afraid.

job seeker

I was thought sex ed in 1st year at secondary school which consisted of the wood work teacher putting a condom on the handle of a yard brush..

LETHAL LADY

Went to an all girls catholic primary school and in sixth class we had our first sex education talk delivered by a nun. We had to get permission slips signed by our parents to attend and some girls were not allowed to attend the class at all. I couldn't understand this as even my mother, who is an old fashioned type, knew we weren't going to hear about anything that shocking especially with a nun doing the talk. It was farcical as we had to write our questions on pieces of paper which the nun then chose whether or not to read and reply to. Very basic and didn't teach us anything we didn't know already.


Next sex type education was science in first year. Again an all girls school and by a male science teacher who was mortified to say the least, but to be fair it wasn't his job to really go into anything but the mechanics of it.


Finally, pastoral care class in sixth year and yet again another nun doing the talking. Basically that talk was a lecture stating that if you don't have sex you will not get pregnant. The ultimate wrong according to the nun was to end up a teenage mother.


I tried to educate myself as much as I could as a teenager about the actual reality of it through reading what I could (magazines, books, no internet in my day), by my older sisters advice and by listening to my friends experiences. I have to say when I was that age it was all about making girls fearful of getting pregnant or being called a slut was the implication of the method of sex education I received.


I suppose that nowadays with so much information available online schools feel less of a need to deliver up to standard sex education classes. I think that parents hold a lot of responsibility when it comes to sex education in the first place and I hope to be able to deliver open and honest advice to my kids, but honestly I'm glad I am are a few years off that yet.

Forgot to mention it was the lovers guide vhs tape that taught my generation about sex.

Merkin

I went to a Catholic all girls boarding school and we had no sex ed whatsoever. We were wheeled into watch a VHS in one religion class in second year which glossed over menstruation and that was the extent of it!:eek:

Thankfully Mum told me the facts of life when I was about ten, if she hasn't and I was depending on our education system I'd still be none the wiser!

irish_goat

We had science sex ed and religious sex ed. The religious one was a video that had a middle aged man and woman discussing puberty and then the man talked about erections and told us that he liked to "think about icebergs" to make them go away.

To be fair, it's a good trick. :pac:

oldyouth

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

It is the job of the parents. Years ago it was handed off to the schools and church.

It is a natural thing that should be explained to kids when it is felt necessary, like "you know who" not really existing at a certain time of the year.

100% agree, but as we all know, some parents don't give a damn and we owe it to those kids to inform them as best we can

Faith

oldyouth wrote: »

100% agree, but as we all know, some parents don't give a damn and we owe it to those kids to inform them as best we can

How do we do that, though? How do we draw attention to the importance of sex education? Even the Irish Times article I linked to, while excellent, sat on the fence and made no real recommendations.

I'm at a loss as to how we get the message across.

RDM_83 again

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.

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.

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.

Czarcasm

Faith wrote: »

On the other hand, do you disagree with me completely? Do you think sex education has no place in schools? Do you fear we'll encourage kids to have sex if we teach them about it?

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.

Did you get sex education in school? Was it any good? Did it happen too early/too late?

Same as Zaph, page 268 in the science book we had from first to third year, spent about two classes on the human reproductive system, and most of that two hours was spent sniggering at the lay teacher trying to keep a serious face while he died a slow death inside. It was too late at that stage anyway as I'd lost my virginity during the Summer holidays before I'd even gone into secondary school. Hadn't a bulls notion what I was doing tbh. I'd read about the human reproductive system and sex and sexuality in Encyclopedia Britanica when I was about eight. The reality, as I quickly discovered, was far different from the theory. It was only in 5th year religion class that we touched on issues such as abortion, and when I say touched, I mean, barely skimmed, before the class reverted to the teacher regaling us with tales of his GAA days.

I'd love to get an idea of how parents and teachers feel about this too.

My child is 9 now and he's FAR too immature yet to be hitting him with the condom on a banana type stuff, but we (my wife and I) have given our permission for our child to be taught the Stay Safe programme in school. They're still only on the stranger danger stuff and tbh my child would talk the ears off an elephant, I don't know is the danger element sinking in, and I'm not sure I want him being conscious about asserting himself with adults. Bit of a double edged sword that one, because I want him to enrich his social development, not stunt it.

I'd love to get a good discussion going about this because I feel so passionate about it. I personally feel that secondary school students should be provided with the full facts so that they can act in confidence when the time comes, rather than pretending that, if we don't talk about it, they won't do it.

The problem is, and the problem will always be, that no matter how much factual information they get, whether it be from the school, the curriculum, their parents/guardians, without being open to feedback from children and adolescents themselves, giving children "just the facts", like a one way system, means we have no idea how much they actually understand and how they're interpreting the information that's being delivered. It needs to be an open discussion format (two way system with checks and balances in place) rather than the current closed delivery format (one way system with no checks and balances in place).

catallus

When I was in the final year of primary school we were given a course in what I suppose one would call sex-ed; it focused on the physical act of intercourse and the biology of menstruation; I can remember it still as being really boring, going on and on about the cycle, the ins-and-outs how pregnancy occurs and the physics of the production of sperm and the male orgasm and the potential for conception of a child. We were then given the rundown of stds and how condom use stops sperm from entering the woman and lessens the risk of things like herpes and all the rest. We were ten, a lot of it went over our heads. Iirc, AIDS prevention was a big thing; I know the teacher, who was a man in his late 60's, saying at the start that the programme was designed with the input of parents and the education department and the local bishop! He seemed to me to be not in total agreement with the thing but being the professional he was he said he'd go along with it. In secondary school we were given more or less the same thing on a yearly basis, but then there was the other stuff which seemed to be teachers in training going on about relationships, which as a teenager I found to be squirmish. Then in university there was an aggressive promotion of condom use and sexual harassment education through seemingly ubiquitous leaflets and posters, but it wasn't part of any curriculum but the thing just stank of nosy do-gooders who wanted to control people's lives.

What I think now is that young people will educate themselves, mostly. The physics of the thing should be spelled out, but kids learn at their own speed.

rainbow kirby

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:

We had a counsellor from Accord come in to teach the very basics in 6th class (which parents could opt their children out of), covered reproduction in a very dry, scientific manner in Junior Cert science (not a mandatory subject in my school), and then had "Health Ed" in Transition Year taught by a retired (rather religious) midwife.

Mr. G

When I was in 3rd year our SPHE teacher had said that they're going to send out letters to parents so that they may request for their child to be pulled out. To say the least no letter arrived home and everyone carried on. I think if anything it should be mandatory. Why send out letters? A 16 year old should be mature enough to be told about sex education. They'll hear about it from friends, and that may not be 100% accurate. We dealt with everything really and I thought it was very thoroughly done, even for a Catholic school. Needless to say, I thought it was much better then the giggles of 1st year. We were probably an exception to the rest who had different teachers. I think teaching it at 12 can be a little difficult, especially since their attention span is practically zero.

That's my view on it anyway.

Faith

Czarcasm wrote: »

The problem is, and the problem will always be, that no matter how much factual information they get, whether it be from the school, the curriculum, their parents/guardians, without being open to feedback from children and adolescents themselves, giving children "just the facts", like a one way system, means we have no idea how much they actually understand and how they're interpreting the information that's being delivered. It needs to be an open discussion format (two way system with checks and balances in place) rather than the current closed delivery format (one way system with no checks and balances in place).

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.

GarIT

GarIT wrote: »

There is a bias here which a lot of people especially radio shows don't notice. We had great sex ed but when surveyed over half the class said we got very little or none at all. The group that said we got none would appear to be the group that just took the piss and didn't listen.

Funny enough the majority of the ones who I know who had kids early were the same. Most also came from families where others had done the same in the past.
I find it hard to believe a 15 year old girl and 17 year old fella getting together need "education" to, as Jeremy Kyle would say, put something on the end of it.

Mr. G

Faith wrote: »

A 'dress rehearsal', so to speak.

A roll play really? Not really a dress rehearsal in a classroom, god only knows how that would turn out!

I completely agree with the rest of what you are saying.

Faith

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.

Sounds fine in theory, when I was in school (not so long ago) any kind of interaction other than the teacher picking one person to answer specific question lead to not very much being done that day.

Faith

Mr. G wrote: »

A roll play really? Not really a dress rehearsal in a classroom, god only knows how that would turn out!

I completely agree with the rest of what you are saying.

No, not a roll play in the slightest! Couldn't think of anything worse . No, small group discussions, with the help of the leader of the session, which are then discussed amongst the whole group. It would be getting the students to just chat about the issues, not acting a conversation out in any shape or form.

Buttonftw - I wouldn't envisage any student having to speak to the group at large, only within small groups that they're comfortable with.

Femme_Fatale

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.

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.

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.

This is a good idea IMO.

skydish79

Maybe parents should take their role as prime educators of their own children and stop farming out their repsonsibility to the state

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

Days 298

Weren't allowed to be shown contraception by the sex ed crowd that came into my class due to my schools catholic ethos. That was around 2 years ago....

Glad I'm out of that school.

PopePalpatine

catallus wrote: »

Then in university there was an aggressive promotion of condom use and sexual harassment education through seemingly ubiquitous leaflets and posters, but it wasn't part of any curriculum but the thing just stank of nosy do-gooders who wanted to control people's lives.

And the Church didn't?

EoghanIRL

skydish79 wrote: »

Maybe parents should take their role as prime educators of their own children and stop farming out their repsonsibility to the state

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

Really . Why ? What If the parents aren't educated enough or if they are uncomfortable speaking about it.

anothernight

I did primary school in a different country. When I was 10, my teacher had a parent-teacher meeting to decide on what exactly to teach us as sex-ed. We'd already done the anatomy bits a couple of years earlier, so my teacher mostly focused on contraception and the like. We were encouraged to ask any questions we might have, and we didn't bother with anonymous slips of paper or anything, even though we were given that option. Nothing was said on morality, or on abortion (which is legal over there).

At around the same time, a nurse in my local health centre told me all about menstruation, what to do when it arrived, that it was a normal part of life and yadda yadda.

Then I moved to Ireland, to an all girl Catholic school. SPHE was mostly "don't have sex girls, you're way too young". We were indeed too young at that stage, but nothing else was said. When we were 16 we were given a talk on menstruation (waaaay too late, as the majority of the girls already had their periods) which was more an ad for Tampax and Always than anything else. Had it been given earlier, and without the blatant advertising, it would have been very good.

That same year we were also given a much overdue 2 or 3-hour block of sex ed. It was brilliant! It was given by a nurse who covered everything really well, without sounding patronising or anything. We required parental permission (though none of the parents forbade the talk) because she showed us pictures of advanced STD sores and things, talked about swingers getting chlamydia in their throats, about homosexuality being ok unless the particular person is religious (in which case she said it was up to their own conscience) and did the condom thing on a pink dildo. We were encouraged to asks questions, either openly or using slips of paper. It was really great, although much too late because many of us weren't virgins anymore.


My mum also told me a little about things... which amounted to "don't have sex before marriage". I asked her what a condom was when I was 7 or 8, and her answer was that they were used to avoid diseases. That was the extent of my parent-provided sex ed with my very religious mother.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

............. Then in university there was an aggressive promotion of condom use and sexual harassment education through seemingly ubiquitous leaflets and posters, but it wasn't part of any curriculum but the thing just stank of nosy do-gooders who wanted to control people's lives.

............

...armed gangs forcing you to read them, hit squads forcing you to engage in sexual activity.....it sounds like a dystopian nightmare - you should write a book about it.

catallus

Nodin wrote: »

...armed gangs forcing you to read them, hit squads forcing you to engage in sexual activity.....it sounds like a dystopian nightmare - you should write a book about it.

Well they weren't hit squads, per se, but they were fairly aggressive; buy a girl a drink and you had to have an escape route; god bless UCD :pac:

LETHAL LADY

Nodin wrote: »

...armed gangs forcing you to read them, hit squads forcing you to engage in sexual activity.....it sounds like a dystopian nightmare - you should write a book about it.

I read this in a Fast Show suits you sir voice.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

Well they weren't hit squads, per se, but they were fairly aggressive; buy a girl a drink and you had to have an escape route; god bless UCD :pac:

I was there.



For a freshers ball about 25 years ago.

Czarcasm

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Really . Why ? What If the parents aren't educated enough or if they are uncomfortable speaking about it.

The parents having sex are the reason their children exist in the first place, so they have a duty as their children's parents to educate themselves and the more educated they are, the more comfortable they'll get in discussing sex and sexuality with their children. If they give a fcuk about their children at all, it is in their own interests to have these discussions with their children so that their children are also comfortable in having these discussions with their parents rather than continuing the cycle of ill informed parents leads to ill informed children which leads to them becoming ill informed parents unable to talk to their children.