nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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!! >.<

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.

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: »

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).

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.

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?

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

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

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.

--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

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

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".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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.