What age were you when you learnt about birth control?

Peatys

6th class. So about 12.. 1990.

Grayson

kylith wrote: »

My Catholic secondary school didn't even teach us names for body parts. We were told to wash our 'front bottoms'.

I had to check with my mum if 'front bottom' meant vagina cos I had no idea what the teacher was on about. Front bottom, ffs.

That's sllly. It's littlebottom and big bottom ;P

Skedaddle

That's one of the things that I find a bit of a problem in Ireland, we all assume that school / education was exactly how ours was.

In my case, I had pretty progressive parents and teachers over the years and I don't ever remember not knowing these things, but it doesn't mean that's the same experience that everyone else had.

We actually have a very, very variable school system because all the schools are effectively privately owned, state funded organisations. The individual experiences vary enormously, at least from what I've heard.

farmerwifelet

went to catholic school crap sex ed, very religious parents so nothing from them but i had a tv and friends and I went on the pill at 17. Sometimes you have to learn things for yourself.Can't go blaming everyone else - how with google, internet, books, tv etc can people not figure out contraception? if you read the booklet you get with the pill it tells you how it works! (and doesn't in the case of antibiotics!)
I think girls are doing themselves a disservice by wanting to be spoonfed information on sex and birth control. Take control and find out for yourself. If you are a parent sit your teenager down and give them a decent book on it. Boys included.

seamus

I genuinely don't remember the moment I heard about it, though I was probably aware that condoms existed from around the same time I learned about the basic mechanics of ejaculation = pregnancy and so forth.

Certainly wasn't from school though. We had sex education, but I don't recall any specific discussion on the use of condoms. I don't think I ever saw a real condom until I went and bought my own at 16 (bless my optimism).

Sex education in 6th class consisted of a discussion on bodies changing and hair growing out of places it didn't seem like it was supposed to.

Then there was junior cert biology. And then in 4th year an afternoon of slides showing pictures of diseased penises and vaginas and reasons why you should avoid just lashing your mickey anywhere. Any talk of condoms in that regard would have been more hand-waving, "Don't do this, but if you do you should wear a bag". The bulk of the talk was trying to scare us into keeping it in our trousers and wait until we were married.

Peatys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxgXWHo9jvI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUMTOTa7J00

Triceratops Ballet

BattleCorp wrote: »

By the way, there's something seriously wrong with society if we need to send people to 'consent classes'. Is there no 'personal responsibility' any more? Do people seriously not know right from wrong? I can see the excuse being rolled out in the near future "It's not my fault I raped her, I didn't have a consent class". Bullsh1t.

what is wrong with teaching kids how to say no assertively, if they don't want to proceed with sex, or to say yes if they do. What's wrong with teaching kids to recognise when someone is consenting v's not consenting.
I think a lot of schools teach sex ed as the functional parts of it and maybe how to not get a disease, or pregnant. When it should be a real conversation

I would've been about 10 or 11, then we were told a bit more at 12.

I never really got the "lack of education" thing tbh. It was generally the people who told pre-pubescent me about sex and contraception at younger ages who ended up pregnant or an expectant father for the Junior Cert. :P

RDM_83 again

Will I Am Not wrote: »

I often wonder if I’m living in the same Ireland as everyone else.

It's remarkable how all the people below 40 who didn't get taught anything at all about birth control at all are all strongly vocally pro-choice atheists that don't like the CC, must just be one of these random coincidences that happen.

Will I Am Not

RDM_83 again wrote: »

It's remarkable how all the people below 40 who didn't get taught anything at all about birth control at all are all strongly vocally pro-choice atheists that don't like the CC, must just be one of these random coincidences that happen.

Either that or they are making it up to help their cause. Must be the coincidence thing.

freshpopcorn

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

what is wrong with teaching kids how to say no assertively, if they don't want to proceed with sex, or to say yes if they do. What's wrong with teaching kids to recognise when someone is consenting v's not consenting.
I think a lot of schools teach sex ed as the functional parts of it and maybe how to not get a disease, or pregnant. When it should be a real conversation

Most people I know knows you don't have sex when the person is out of it or if they say no or if they want to stop.

Triceratops Ballet

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Most people I know knows you don't have sex when the person is out of it or if they say no or if they want to stop.

good for them!

Why is it a bad idea to teach kids to be assertive about their own sexuality?

An tUasal C

Currently in fifth year and with regards school, nothing to do with sex was remotely touched on in primary and we had to learn a form of contraception for junior cert science which was ‘a condom is used to prevent the sperm cell from fertilising the egg cell’.

Definitely not enough being done in most schools and nothing being done during the course of my education.

freshpopcorn

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

good for them!

Why is it a bad idea to teach kids to be assertive about their own sexuality?

Nothing bad but I think they way people are trying to sell it at the moment is bad and when people hear about them they just roll their eyes!

Triceratops Ballet

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Nothing bad but I think they way people are trying to sell it at the moment is bad and when people hear about them they just roll their eyes!

I'm talking about touching on consent as part of a fully rounded conversation with young people about sex and sexuality. Rather than the current system, of don't do sex cos you might get pregnant or a disease. I think it's a totally normal part of the discussion.

freshpopcorn

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I'm talking about touching on consent as part of a fully rounded conversation with young people about sex and sexuality. Rather than the current system, of don't do sex cos you might get pregnant or a disease. I think it's a totally normal part of the discussion.

I didn't experience the type of sex education that you experienced so we're on different pages!

Hector Bellend

When I started banging the ladies

kylith

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Most people I know knows you don't have sex when the person is out of it or if they say no or if they want to stop.

That's great, but it can be the case that when faced with an initial no some people keep going to try to pester the other person into sex. Some people don't realise that someone going limp and passive is a sign that they don't want to do it but don't know how to say no or fight back.

Any decent person knows that if someone is saying no or trying to fight you off then they don't want to have sex and to force them would be monsterous, but a lot of people cant' spot the subtler signs that someone isn't into it but, for whatever reason, doesn't know how/is afraid to refuse.

There's no harm teaching young people that consent should be enthustastic and freely given.

freshpopcorn

kylith wrote: »

That's great, but it can be the case that when faced with an initial no some people keep going to try to pester the other person into sex. Some people don't realise that someone going limp and passive is a sign that they don't want to do it but don't know how to say no or fight back.

Any decent person knows that if someone is saying no or trying to fight you off then they don't want to have sex and to force them would be monsterous, but a lot of people cant' spot the subtler signs that someone isn't into it but, for whatever reason, doesn't know how/is afraid to refuse.

There's no harm teaching young people that consent should be enthustastic and freely given.

I am not against it being taught but most people I know knows what it is already and know if their pushing somebody into something. So having a few classes on the matter wouldn't have had much of a difference!

Grayson

kylith wrote: »

That's great, but it can be the case that when faced with an initial no some people keep going to try to pester the other person into sex. Some people don't realise that someone going limp and passive is a sign that they don't want to do it but don't know how to say no or fight back.

Any decent person knows that if someone is saying no or trying to fight you off then they don't want to have sex and to force them would be monsterous, but a lot of people cant' spot the subtler signs that someone isn't into it but, for whatever reason, doesn't know how/is afraid to refuse.

There's no harm teaching young people that consent should be enthustastic and freely given.

I'm just reading an article about consent. They say that rather than "no means no" we should be teaching that only an enthusiastic yes should suffice.
That's not a bad idea.

Grayson

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I am not against it being taught but most people I know knows what it is already and know if their pushing somebody into something. So having a few classes on the matter wouldn't have had much of a difference!

But, as I mentioned earlier, don't assume that everyone has the same level of knowledge as you or your friends.
That's why we should have classes on this. It's not something that should be 4 times a week for two years. 😊A few hours a year is no harm.

Corkgirl18

Just finished teaching Human Reproduction to my 2nd years last week. Male and female reproductive organs, intercourse, implantation, birth, breastfeeding, various methods of mechanical/chemical/natural contraceptives and IVF were all covered and are part of the course.

Students usually have a sex talk in 6th class. SPHE covers sex education, contraception, STI's etc and the topic is usually done in 2nd or 3rd year.

I went to a convent school and we had a talk in 6th class, covered more in SPHE in 2nd and 3rd year and had a sex ed talk in TY focusing majorly on contraception and STIs.

kylith

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I am not against it being taught but most people I know knows what it is already and know if their pushing somebody into something. So having a few classes on the matter wouldn't have had much of a difference!

And some people don't know it, so having a few classes on the subject won't do any harm.

An tUasal C

Corkgirl18 wrote: »

Just finished teaching Human Reproduction to my 2nd years last week. Male and female reproductive organs, intercourse, implantation, birth, breastfeeding, various methods of mechanical/chemical/natural contraceptives and IVF were all covered and are part of the course.

Students usually have a sex talk in 6th class. SPHE covers sex education, contraception, STI's etc and the topic is usually done in 2nd or 3rd year.

This was not part of my junior cert science education last year. Whether or not it’s on the course - it wasn’t taught.

Never happened in my primary. May technically cover it but no aspect of sex was ever covered during my junior cycle.

Also, I rarely if ever am absent from school.

Just saying for a lot of students this isn’t the case and it is 100% possible for a student to leave 6th year without an iota what an STI is because I was never told.

Definitely need a dedicated sex course that all students need to cover during the course of their education.

CastielJ

it was 18but most of my classmates still don't know about condoms

seamus

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I am not against it being taught but most people I know knows what it is already and know if their pushing somebody into something. So having a few classes on the matter wouldn't have had much of a difference!

I think you're probably projecting your own personal ideals and knowledge onto others. No matter how close a friend may be, you probably don't know how they will act in the more niche scenarios.

I could say with absolute certainty that I have no friends who would forcibly rape a woman, or take a clearly semi-conscious/wasted one home in the knowledge that she couldn't resist.

I couldn't, however, say for certain how they would act in the grey areas. When everyone's really drunk. When they're trying to seduce a person into sex. When they're "making their moves". Filling up her glass of wine (and their own) in the hope that it makes them more open to sex.

And not all of these are specifically consent issues. But that's the whole point; trying to draw the line between the scenarios where consent is not an issue, and consent may be an issue.

It generally stems back to the social ideas we teach that men always want sex and women don't. Thus it men's duty to "encourage" women to have sex, and women's duty to resist. Which makes it really hard for men to know when "no" actually means "no" and really hard for women to figure out how to say "no" in a way that isn't construed as playing games.
It also creates a reverse problem - the assumption that men can't be raped because they're always up for it.

It's getting better, it's getting way better, but there will continue to be idiots who raise their children with these ideas. And consent classes are a good start to realign the thinking of both sexes to understand that sex should always be a two-way interaction, and not a game of chasing.

lawred2

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I heard a little bit of the news earlier and there was a woman(sounded young) from the UCC feminists society talking about them wanting to introduce mandatory consent classes for first years. I was like yes fair enough but most people I knew back then had a fair idea what consent was.
However she then went onto say she went to a catholic secondary school and she left not knowing what a condom or the pill was. I knew from an early age about condoms were to do with sex but I had a fair idea before we did sex education at the end of primary school. We also briefly covered it in secondary school.
Have schools stopped teaching this stuff?
Would it be possible you'd get to the age of eighteen and not know what a condom was?

Yeah she's lying

lawred2

January wrote: »

She may not be lying. Catholic ethos schools teach abstinence, they don't give info about contraceptives.

and her parents & friends?

seamus

seamus wrote: »

It generally stems back to the social ideas we teach that men always want sex and women don't. Thus it men's duty to "encourage" women to have sex, and women's duty to resist. Which makes it really hard for men to know when "no" actually means "no" and really hard for women to figure out how to say "no" in a way that isn't construed as playing games.

It's not just a social idea.

freshpopcorn

Just to note I am not against classes on consent but I don't think they should be in third level.
They should be done at second level where more students can access them because when I was on college nights out you'd bump into loads of people who weren't at third level.
I also think they should just be part of a program of dealing with alcohol/drugs/drunken friends/etc.
So basically a more up to date SPHE classes.