Sex education in schools!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, I wouldn’t have put it quite like that, but if it helps your limited intellect, my opinion is somewhat more nuanced than either extreme you’re presenting there. If the aim is to teach children about relationships and sex education, porn shouldn’t even be considered a useful learning tool in the classroom. I don’t send my child to school to watch porn, and I don’t consider it the role of the school to educate my child about porn. I send him to school to be educated in my values, not someone else’s values.

The fact that you consider my morals Victorian when they are very much in the majority in Western society is just silly, frankly, but understandable given your limited intellect.

I am sorry to have bothered a being of such intelligence. Yet I fail to detect any actual information in your ramblings as to what sex education, if any, you do advocate.

Please, please be patient with a person of an obviously limited intelligence and explain in short, easily understood sentences what exactly this nuanced sex education program for your hypothetical child should contain.

FunLover18 wrote: »

This bit in bold is the reason they want to show porn because it's NOT a useful learning tool about sex but research shows that more and more young people are turning to porn for sex education and they shouldn't be because it creates misconceptions and it doesn't address important issues like consent or safe sex. Also school is not a place where the values of individual parents are taught, that would be chaos, the education system should to be objective. At home is where parents can and should teach their children about their values.

And other also research shows that young people are having less sex than ever before. It depends upon where you get your research from I suppose. It can certainly be argued that exposure to pornography can influence young people’s attitudes to others in a negative way, and I would put that argument in the same bracket as the whole argument about whether or not violence in video games influences young people’s attitudes to others - there’s no evidence for any direct causative effect.

I think you’ve picked me up wrong with what I said about schools. Schools are the last place I’d expect to find an objective perspective on relationships and sex education, particularly because I know that every year the parents are asked for their opinions on forming the schools policies in regards to relationships and sex education. It’s not the chaos you imagine it is, as most parents are on the same page - nobody wants their children being exposed to material they find offensive. That’s precisely why parents have the right to refuse to allow their children to participate in relationships and sex education programmes.

For what it’s worth though- I don’t think the upcoming bill will be approved with the rider that sex education should have no regard for the characteristic spirit of the school. That’s just never going to fly so I’m not actually too put out by the whole thing at all tbh.

Schools shouldn't let parents decide what can be taught in sex ed , or be swayed by religion,

Sex ed should be completely open and honest about sex , sexualitiy and relationships including masturbation ,oral and anything else young people want to know about ,
This whole malarky of i don't want my little Mary and Johnny learning certain things because mammies or daddies sensitive morals

FunLover18 wrote: »

I don't think comparing porn and violent video games is the same. Sex is something we are programmed to do, it's something most people will do and want to do. Violence does not fall into that category and from an early age children are taught and learn instinctively that violence is wrong.

I wasn’t comparing porn and violent video games, I was comparing the arguments that are commonly used to explain the influence of either violence in video games or porn - that as a consequence of being exposed to them, it’s inevitable that they are the cause of an individual’s attitudes to others. The evidence of an inevitable negative influence is sketchy, at best.

I also wouldn’t agree with you that sex is something we are programmed to do, as though that’s an inevitability either. In the same way that people learn from an early age to contextualise concepts like violence, they also learn from an early age to contextualise concepts like relationships and sexuality. It’s why most people don’t commit violent sexual acts on other people, because they know that such behaviour is inappropriate and there are consequences in law if they choose to ignore what they have learned throughout their lives. It’s why those people who do commit violent sexual acts try to avoid being caught - they know there are consequences for their attitudes and actions, consequences which they try to avoid.

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'll take your word on how sex ed is currently taught with parent consultation as I'm not a parent but the fact that you don't expect an objective perspective on relationships and sex education tells me that we need one.

We don’t need an objective perspective on relationships and sex education, because there is no such thing. There’s my perspective, there’s your perspective, and neither could be considered objective. What is taught already in schools is the very basics of relationships and sex education according to the ethos of the school which is generally in line with parents values which they wish to impart to their children. It’s that context which is important in educating children, because it’s their parent or guardians are generally their children’s primary influence, and it’s their parents or guardians who are the most invested in how their children are to be educated.

I wouldn’t discount your opinion simply because you’re not a parent though, but when it comes to how I would wish for my child to be educated, it stands to reason that my opinion would carry more weight in that decision than anyone else’s. I would expect any other parent or guardian would feel the same way about their children, and naturally that’s going to mean we don’t make the same choices when it comes to our children’s education or welfare. If adults don’t understand that much, I don’t expect those adults should be in any position to educate children about diversity in society and the fact that other people exist in society who don’t share their values or perspectives.

Silentcorner wrote:

Half the problem is the level of intellect of the people trying to force whatever ideology is the flavour of the month down your kids throat, they aren't always the brightest...be they priests, feminists, gender/sexuality theorists...but they do love influencing young minds...weren't the Nazis a terror for it?

Ah come on now, that's a bit strong, the priests weren't that bad

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Here's Kate Dawson on 'this morning' speaking about her belief that 8 year old children should be taught about masturbation.

Before I watch that, have you spent the last few hours researching what exactly is on the proposed syllabus for sex education? For teenagers? As opposes to what one person thinks should be there?

Simple yes or no will suffice.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Here's Kate Dawson on 'this morning' speaking about her belief that 8 year old children should be taught about masturbation.

Shock horror kids 8 and younger are known to masturbate why not educate them about it properly

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Yes I have, you haven't

Liar.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

By the by, one of the pornographic films they suggested showing to kids in class is 'Deep Throat' the 1970s film which was one of the first pornographic 'blockbusters'

QED

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Thats what the priests did isn't it? Showed those boys how to masturbate..

Boys and girls masturbate it's got nothing to do with priests or anyone else it's a natural experience ,

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

What am I lying about?

This

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

H have you spent the last few hours researching what exactly is on the proposed syllabus for sex education? For teenagers? As opposes to what one person thinks should be there?

Simple yes or no will suffice.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Yes I have

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

I have all the info, whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.

I'll leave you here then. Not really much point in debating with someone who pretends to have the **** he makes up.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

What info do you require

**** it, one last try.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

By the by, one of the pornographic films they suggested showing to kids in class is 'Deep Throat' the 1970s film which was one of the first pornographic 'blockbusters'

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Thats what the priests did isn't it? Showed those boys how to masturbate..

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s why this whole malarkey of teaching children about masturbation, oral and the infinite aspects of relationships and sexuality in schools is a non-starter - schools simply don’t have the resources to address all the various aspects of relationships and sexuality,

Isn't it mad though how they have infinite resources available for covering stories about nailing people to the cross, and spirits impregnating young girls and all of that stuff? No shortage of time or teachers for communions and confirmations and 'end of term masses', but when it comes to a basic practical lifeskill, nah, we've no resources.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

By the by, one of the pornographic films they suggested showing to kids in class

Who's the 'they' here? Is this anything to do with the curriculum being proposed by the NCCA, or are you just picking extreme international examples that have nothing to do with Ireland to rile people up?

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Thats what the priests did isn't it? Showed those boys how to masturbate..

No, they usually raped them - whether anally or orally. It was rape.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

So you did your reseach into sexual education by reading The Sun. And then quote the person involved distancing herself from the report. Right.

I accept you aren't a liar. Someone who has absolutely clueless as to how to go about doing basic research in order to form an independent opinion and is completely unaware of how stupid they look when they try, yes - but not a liar.

And most DEFINTELY done here now.

FunLover18 wrote: »

But I think I you're comparing the effects of porn/video games on attitudes to sex/violence, I think it's important to compare those attitudes in the first place and they're very different. Sex whilst not openly talked about is something that's accepted as part of life whereas violence isn't. Therefore the effects of porn will vary and people, especially young people will take away different things in terms of what is acceptable/realistic whereas it's only the very rare person, possibly but not always suffering from some form of mental disorder, who will fail to disassociate video games from reality.

Violence is very much accepted as part of life - everywhere people turn, they are exposed to violence, in every medium you’d care to mention, whether it be online or offline, tv, cinema, newspapers, etc, and violence is often glorified, celebrated and monetised - how many children grew up exposed to WWE? There are still some adults who don’t grasp the concept that the E stands for Entertainment.

I think the effects of attempting to educate young people will vary as much as the effects of exposure to porn or violence or religion or anything else you’d care to think of - everyone is going to assimilate the information in whatever way does or doesn’t fit with what they already do or don’t believe already - it either makes sense to them, or it doesn’t, based upon their own individual experiences, interests and how they interpret information which is imparted to them. The idea that children will assimilate information in the same way and retain that information throughout their lives and apply it in all contexts related to relationships and sexuality is wishful thinking, at best.

It’s understandable though why it would be wishful thinking on the part of the educator - because the outcome is more based upon hope of a particular outcome as opposed to being able to predict with any degree of certainty what the outcome will be. That’s why evidence of the negative influence of pornography or violence in society just don’t stand up to scrutiny - everyone in any given society is exposed to pornography and violence, yet it’s only a very small minority of those people who are exposed to pornography or violence actually fail to distinguish between fantasy and reality. They would still fail to distinguish between fantasy and reality in spite of however they were educated, simply because they can’t relate what they’re being told, with what they actually experience in their idea of reality.

FunLover18 wrote: »

I think objective was possibly the wrong word. Obviously each parent is going to have different views on what they want their child to learn or be exposed to, so by "objective" I mean that the education system shouldn't have this protective attitude, parents should have the option to take children out of classes but I don't think the state should be overly concerned with causing "offence". So take for example sexuality, I think this should form part of the curriculum because different sexualities exist and are a fact of every day life, children are going to encounter it as an issue possibly have to go through that themselves, so to me a parent asking that it not be part of the curriculum because it offends them is akin to a parent asking for evolution to be taken out of the curriculum.

Bear in mind we're talking about children which covers a very wide age range and I'm not suggesting or advocating that any child in primary school be shown porn.

I get the general point you’re making alright, but the State is obligated to have a protective attitude for the common good of society - it’s precisely why we have laws which prohibit all sorts of behaviours towards others, and even prevent the State from interfering in the life of the family to the degree that some people here would want the State to be able to do.

In introducing any new education policy too, Government has to be cognisant of the common good, and I expect you would have no difficulty in convincing the current Government of the need for reform in relationships and sexuality education. You’ll have a much harder time of course convincing anyone that disregarding the characteristic spirit of the school is in the interests of the common good of society, simply because every stakeholder involved in education in Ireland has their own subjective stance on what is or isn’t in the interests of the common good of society.

That’s precisely why we have the current education system we do now where there is a national curriculum, and then the patron bodies who qualify for funding are able to have their own curriculum, and then the schools, through the Board of Management in consultation with the parents, is able to further customise the template from the Department of Education in formulating the relationships and sex education policy. It’s not perfect by any means, but none of those stakeholders involved are going to support a system which attempts to undermine their values which form the characteristic spirit of the schools under their patronage.

Ultimately the State has to have regard for the rights of the parents or guardians of children as the primary educators of their children, as opposed to lobby groups with their own ideas regarding relationships and sexuality that they wish to impose upon children contrary to their parents values. I know you’re not advocating showing children porn, but I would go further and suggest I wouldn’t advocate pornography being used in any context within the school. It’s meant for adults and simply shouldn’t be up for discussion among an audience who aren’t adults.