Sex education in schools!

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

The Catholic Church deemed parents as not fit to provide sex education and that their version should be compulsory..the progressive left also feel parents are not fit to provide sex education and that their version should be compulsory...both extremist positions.

Don't know any progressive left extremists, but the left-leaning people I know are happy to let parents teach their own kids. It's parents NOT teaching their kids and trying to isolate them from the real world that's frowned upon and seen as a bit dangerous for when said kid becomes an adult and hasn't learnt a basic life skill.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

The authors of the new guidelines, Seline Keating, Kate Dawson and others have stated repeatedly that it should be mandatory in primary and secondary schools.

Interesting, I don't know how I feel about that, do you have a link? I think it maybe should be mandatory in secondary school when children are going through these changes and are becoming more interested in these topics but this is just me writing as I think.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

I went to a traditional Catholic school and I learned everything I needed to know. When the time came myself and my girlfriend figured it out fairly quickly..as did almost everyone that ever existed on this earth.
The idea that a teacher in school would teach me how to perform cunnilingus or show me pornographic films in class (advocated by Kate Dawson) is off the wall deranged f*cking lunacy.

... so again, it's a case of not knowing what is actually in the syllabus and assuming it's just the basic mechanics via watching porn.

Grand, that's your argument debunked then.

Paul Lee wrote: »

For anyone interested in having a say (that includes everyone, even those I fundamentally disagree with) here's where you can have your say on the forthcoming Pornography For Children Review (or the "review of Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE)" as the Department of Kiddy Fiddlers likes to call it:

https://www.ncca.ie/en/updates-and-events/consultations/review-of-relationships-and-sexuality-education-rse

Please also read Doctor Caroline West who is a big proponent of the "RSE" bill. She kindly supplied the above link before she blocked me on twitter. For those who haven't heard of her, she has a PhD in pornography and.. um... teaches in DCU. I know... "You're a tin-foil-hat-wearing-lunatic" I hear you say.. Nope, I didn't believe it myself and it seems she's actually the real mccoy. At least according to twitter and linkedin. Here she is on twitter: https://twitter.com/CarolineWest_IE

Tell her I said hello.

Department of Kiddy Fiddlers? Yeah nuff said to see you cant be taken here at all.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

The idea that a teacher in school would teach me how to perform cunnilingus or show me pornographic films in class (advocated by Kate Dawson) is off the wall deranged f*cking lunacy.

You're determined to misunderstand what is being proposed, that or you're deliberately twisting what is being proposed to suit your own views.

A quote from today's article in The Irish Independent:

Adolescents are turning to pornography for their sexual education because they can’t find reliable information elsewhere. It is creeping into young people’s sex lives and schools are failing to provide sex education that’s porn-aware.

We need to facilitate learning environments for young people where they can discuss their views on porn; where they can be taught when to know if they’re hurting someone during sex; where they can learn how to recognise healthy boundaries around flirting, kissing and sexting.

Only persons who are blind to dangers of porn, or willingly endorse the porn's view of sex, can oppose the sexual education of teenagers.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, because there’s only the two extremes - no education about relationships and sex education, and kids learning about pucking their girlfriend or boyfriend around because they aren’t into eating ass :rolleyes:

Oh do enlighten us, wise one. Even a person of a very limited intelligence can be a successful troll criticizing others with short remarks and rolling eyes. What is your opinion? No sex education and no mentioning of porn to teenagers, because it hurts your littlie bitsy Victorian morals?

You have to be 16 to do it and 18 to watch it.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Knowing the current climate which is generally:

Anything that moves will be made ultra liberal (e.g. abortion law.)

Basic common sense isn't required. I don't know, maybe it's all these women making decisions. They sure are a looney bunch when they get together.

I don't know any single potlitician in the Dáil that should be given more responsibility than looking after their personal hygiene and feeding themselves. I'd fire them all, give them a subsistence allowance with an option to get a real job if they feel they're up to it.

"That would be an ecumenical matter" once again.

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.

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.

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

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'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.