Sex Education

dahamsta

orangerooster wrote:

Thank feck my parents have sense and filled me in before secondary school.

So to speak.

Cathy

swiss wrote:

in my ignorance I was terrified that I would contract the condition through ... oral sex!

And you were right...

omnicorp

the teachers and government and students are ashamed to talk about sex in a serious manner with each other.

Eoghan-psych

Matthewthebig wrote:

Really? thats news to me. I think condoms do in a way encourage sex. but is it better to be enjoying yourself or being sexually frustrated and repressd

Absolutely - condoms encourage promiscuity in exactly the same way that giving people French lessons makes them foreign.

Oh, wait...

Eoghan-psych

simu wrote:

Jeebus! Imagine the sexual skillz the kids would have after that. Actually, that's a bit creepy!

It's enough to cover it once or twice a year by having a seminar day and giving more detailed and relevant info out as the kids get older imo.

The continued prevalence - and indeed recent rise - of STDs says otherwise.

How often are kids exposed to information about the dangers of smoking? A lot more than a couple of times a year.

elvenscout742

Well, I'm only in Transition Year, so I haven't gone through the Irish education system ENTIRELY, but I find it appalling how Catholicism-oriented the whole RSE thing is. I mean, they might as well have said children born outside of a good, Catholic marriage were pathetic half-breeds or something :mad: .

spudington16

elvenscout742 wrote:

Well, I'm only in Transition Year, so I haven't gone through the Irish education system ENTIRELY, but I find it appalling how Catholicism-oriented the whole RSE thing is. I mean, they might as well have said children born outside of a good, Catholic marriage were pathetic half-breeds or something :mad: .[/QUOTE

I've been through school with you from the beginning and therefore we've been through the same RSE together. What are you on about, child? You are just exaggerating completely what they tried to teach us, as you want ammo to fire in your personall vendetta against the Church.

Sleepy

spudington16 wrote:

I've been through school with you from the beginning and therefore we've been through the same RSE together. What are you on about, child?

How can you dismiss elvenscout742 as a child if you're in the same year in school together? :rolleyes:

elvenscout742

And what he said (or what I got of it before I made a slight change to the old "Ignore" list ) was factually inaccurate. He was not in my class in Sixth Class when we got the whole RSE thing.

rightleftright

Well, I'm only in Transition Year, so I haven't gone through the Irish education system ENTIRELY, but I find it appalling how Catholicism-oriented the whole RSE thing is. I mean, they might as well have said children born outside of a good, Catholic marriage were pathetic half-breeds or something

We live in a Catholic counrty and your in a Catholic school so what do you expect? Dont you believe its right that a baby should be born into a married loving family? They are simply discouraging sex before marriage which is a good thing when you consider the amount of single mothers we see on our streets.

Fysh

rightleftright wrote:

We live in a Catholic counrty and your in a Catholic school so what do you expect? Dont you believe its right that a baby should be born into a married loving family? They are simply discouraging sex before marriage which is a good thing when you consider the amount of single mothers we see on our streets.

Well that's a seriously arguable point.

First of all, the fact that we are a "catholic country" (ie majority of people on the last census gave their religion as catholic) does not mean that everyone's sex ed should revolve around specific religious values. I am firmly of the opinion that, regardless of religious backgrounds in schools, certain basic notions about safe sex should be taught. The school should offer a separate class in which those notions can be presented from a religious perspective, but why should they have the right to keep people ignorant in the name of religion?

Secondly, having several friends who are single mothers and a sister who is technically a single mother (not married but has a long term partner, however legally that does not count), I find your broadsided dismissal of all single mothers fairly obnoxious to say the least. I wouldn't encourage someone to become a single mother without giving the idea a hell of a lot of consideration, but it's a decision they have to make. Not you. It is none of your business if they choose to have a child outside of a church-recognised marriage. Deal with it.

Thirdly, we've yet to see conclusive long-term research about the effects on children of growing up in non-traditional family environments. Therefore, at this point going for the old "but won't someone please think of the children" line is a bit redundant. All we can do is guess - there's no evidence from co-ordinated studies that has reached any kind of firm conclusions on the matter.

Discouraging sex before marriage is one thing, failing to provide adequate warnings and information regarding the dangers of unprotected sex is quite another. Given your attitude about single mothers, don't you think it would be useful to have people taught that, if they are going to have sex at all, they should at least be safe? Or is this where the good old "no contraception" rule kicks in, so that you can get all smug and judgemental about someone who *gasp* had sex out of wedlock and got pregnant?

rightleftright

First of all, the fact that we are a "catholic country" (ie majority of people on the last census gave their religion as catholic) does not mean that everyone's sex ed should revolve around specific religious values

I believe it should. We are a catholic country, and if you cant accept that then get your head out of the sand.

Thirdly, we've yet to see conclusive long-term research about the effects on children of growing up in non-traditional family environments. Therefore, at this point going for the old "but won't someone please think of the children" line is a bit redundant. All we can do is guess - there's no evidence from co-ordinated studies that has reached any kind of firm conclusions on the matter.

Outragious. Everybody is aware of the troubles childern have who grow up in single-parent familys. Crime, under-performance in schools and lack of male/female role model are just some of the well know side-effects. Anybody that thinks otherwise is a fool. Some get through it fine but you cannot deny the negatives. But to suggest it is a posivive thing is outragious!


How come in Ireland say 50 or 60 years ago there was so few single-mothers and we dint have the sluts we have today? Its beause the church had its rules, which some might say were strict, but at least they worked.

Fysh

rightleftright wrote:

I believe it should. We are a catholic country, and if you cant accept that then get your head out of the sand.

Justify it to me. We're a democracy, but part of that means that you don't force religious beliefs on everyone (be they atheistic or related to a specific denomination). The fact that you don't approve of someone else's potential choice does not give you the right to deprive them of it. And until every single person in this nation is a practising catholic, you cannot force a religion or religious belief on everyone. Sorry, but them's the breaks. Democracy sucks sometimes, huh?

rightleftright wrote:

Outragious. Everybody is aware of the troubles childern have who grow up in single-parent familys. Crime, under-performance in schools and lack of male/female role model are just some of the well know side-effects. Anybody that thinks otherwise is a fool. Some get through it fine but you cannot deny the negatives. But to suggest it is a posivive thing is outragious!

Hey hey, there's a hell of a lot of fools out there. Particularly you, since your arguments seem to consist of twisting people's words out of all context. Where, in my previous post, did I say that single-parent families were a positive thing? What I said was: "it's a decision they have to make". I will refrain from passing judgement on the whole thing until some reliable research comes to light with conclusive findings about whether the results are good or bad. How do you know that the effects of being part of a single-parent family you've described apply to all situations, rather than just those where the family in question is at the lower end of the economic scale or living in an already crime-prone area? You're throwing generalisations at me and calling it an argument.

As I said previously, there's no concrete evidence or research to back this up. Until then, everyone's talking opinion, and frankly policy decisions based on opinions rather than research are likely to cause more harm than good.

rightleftright wrote:

How come in Ireland say 50 or 60 years ago there was so few single-mothers and we dint have the sluts we have today? Its beause the church had its rules, which some might say were strict, but at least they worked.

Eh, no they didn't and no they don't. Quite aside from your hilarious rage at "sluts" (because, you know, a single woman getting pregnant can only mean she's a slut - never mind the necessary contribution from an equally sexually liberal young man) I think you'll find you're ignoring the number of women who made (and still make) the journey over to the UK to avail of their faintly less conservative policy on abortion.

The church had and has its rules - but I think the dwindling numbers of people turning up to mass (regardless of whether people state on a census that they're catholic) show a growing attitude of disdain towards the church. The fact is, the church had power without responsibility; a situation that has no place in a democratic nation. The ongoing situation regarding clerical abuse being covered up (and before you accuse me of it; I'm not claiming every priest was at it or that the church was/is a vast organisation of paedophiles or anything - I'm just referring to the various instances in which the church has gone to various lengths to hide instances of sexual abuse by priests) should be enough evidence of that.

elvenscout742

Fysh wrote:

The church had and has its rules - but I think the dwindling numbers of people turning up to mass (regardless of whether people state on a census that they're catholic) show a growing attitude of disdain towards the church. The fact is, the church had power without responsibility; a situation that has no place in a democratic nation.

Here, here!

Great, ne?

spudington16

rightleftright wrote:

Outragious. Everybody is aware of the troubles childern have who grow up in single-parent familys. Crime, under-performance in schools and lack of male/female role model are just some of the well know side-effects. Anybody that thinks otherwise is a fool. Some get through it fine but you cannot deny the negatives. But to suggest it is a posivive thing is outragious!

Would you mind referencing the study that you sourced this information from? From the sound of it, and from your history of notorious bigoted posts on other threads, it would seem you are pulling random facts and statistics out of thin air to justify your medieval attitude to family groups.

There are women who would personally want to raise their child on their own, e.g. if the father was not fit for his parental roles. You have no right to judge them. Nor have you the right to refer to the women of Ireland as "sluts". Get a grip on reality, man!

Zombrex

rightleftright wrote:

How come in Ireland say 50 or 60 years ago there was so few single-mothers and we dint have the sluts we have today? Its beause the church had its rules, which some might say were strict, but at least they worked.

THere were more children born to single mothers 60 years ago than there are today ... so your point is not only offensive it is totally wrong

Piste

On the topic of Sex Education: Sex Education in this country isn't nearly adequate imho. Fortunately mine wasn't bad but I'd say I'm in a minority. In fourth class we got taught the basic development of a fetus throughout pregnancy. In 5th class were were shown a video on puberty. In 6th class we had a woman from Accord come into us and teach us about puberty. In 1st year we had a lecture from a woman from Always (the pad people) about periods.

In our SPHE course it was basically 'Drugs are bad mmk?' 'Peer pressure is bad mmk?' 'Smoking/alchohol are bad mmk?' We watched a video on the development of a fetus in the womb and saw the baby being born (I think the sight put half the girls off childbirth) Just about all our Sex Education so far had been biological/physical, but we had a woman from some organisation come in and talk to us about lads. She was really sweet and frank and all but it was really just about how to get on with them and stuff, nothnig really that useful. We don't get another talk till fourht year, and the another in 6th year. I really think there should be one every year imho.