Relevancy in sex ed

OP

I definitely have been shocked by how little people know on these topics, most people only know 3 sexualities and have no knowledge on how gender identification varies, rather that there is only male or female

Reply 4

Original post by Monument14

I definitely have been shocked by how little people know on these topics, most people only know 3 sexualities and have no knowledge on how gender identification varies, rather that there is only male or female

Biologically speaking aren't there only 2 sexualities?

Reply 5

Everglow

19

Original post by G8D

I don't think we should subject the general population to Tumblrisms, no.

I don't think that's what the OP was suggesting. They were just saying they had to resort to Tumblr from not receiving relevant information in sex ed.

I would agree anyway - I think sex education needs a complete overhaul in schools. So little is covered, and most of it is all for heterosexuals. I remember feeling very isolated during sex education lessons because they were so heavily focussed on pregnancy and safe sex between heterosexual couples. There was so little advice for gay teens like me, and none regarding gender identification from what I can remember.

Reply 6

ShariahProject

1

Get rid of the whole thing; anything beyond core subjects is waste of time. Provided segregation is enforced within a sharia framework, nature will take its course. Newly weds will acquire all the knowledge they need. Otherwise leave education be and concentrate only on academic excellence.

Reply 7

OP

Original post by Schrödingers Cat

Biologically speaking aren't there only 2 sexualities?

There are biologically 2 sexes, but I was referring to sexual orientation as majority only know heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. Most people think asexuality is plants and pansexuals are literally attracted to pans

Reply 8

randdom

20

I think that sex education needs an overhaul generally. When it comes to gender identity and sexual orientations I think that more can definitely be covered than is already. However I think that it is a balancing act when it comes to the amount of time that can be spared in the curriculum for sexual education and ensuring that all important areas are covered. I would say that gender identity and sexual orientation shouldn't be given any more time than for example contraception, relationship abuse and what makes a healthy relationship, deciding when to have sex and also support in when to say no etc which could all be covered a lot more than they are at the moment.

One thing that could be improved when it comes to all areas of sexual education is people being advised as to where they can find out more safe and accurate information (if the teacher hasn't been able to go into as much depth as would be ideal)

Reply 9

Original post by Monument14

There are biologically 2 sexes, but I was referring to sexual orientation as majority only know heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. Most people think asexuality is plants and pansexuals are literally attracted to pans

Ohhhh right, I am skeptical myself of asexuality as little research has been done into it and I maintain the concept of asexuality is factors that affect libido not specifically hormone induced problems or different brain activity towards attraction

When I see evidence I'll believe

Reply 10

Cutty

2

Needs to be focussed on good technique, different moves and all the rest of it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 11

OP

Original post by Schrödingers Cat

Ohhhh right, I am skeptical myself of asexuality as little research has been done into it and I maintain the concept of asexuality is factors that affect libido not specifically hormone induced problems or different brain activity towards attraction

When I see evidence I'll believe

That's evident of the issue we have here :biggrin:

My sex ed was that you should wait until marriage- I learnt practically everything else in Biology, which was poor for what it's worth. In regard to 'tumblrisms' I was merely saying that if I had not had been exposed to the right content at the right time, such as vlogs by youtubers like Laci Green or Hannah Witton, I would probably be as ignorant on such subjects as the rest of my peers.

Reply 12

Zorgotron

6

No, don't introduce gender ideology and sexual morality to children. This should stay out of schools for the same reasons any ideological indoctrination should stay out of schools.

Reply 13

Snagprophet

17

Again, sex ed is about reproduction, notice how it doesn't cover anal sex? So why do people expect it to?

Reply 14

OP

Original post by Snagprophet

Again, sex ed is about reproduction, notice how it doesn't cover anal sex? So why do people expect it to?

Its not just about 'production'; sex ed theoretically is not just about sexual health, but about relationships and consent. If it is simply about reproduction, what happens to the LGBT+ community? Does their sexual health not matter as much as a straight couples does? No, it matters just as much.
It's one of the things the system needs to improve on, sure, they can look up things they need to know online. But if their minority is not even acknowledged in sex ed, what message does that give to heterosexual children on whether an orientation is 'superior' to others?

Reply 15

Snagprophet

17

Original post by Monument14

Its not just about 'production'; sex ed theoretically is not just about sexual health, but about relationships and consent. If it is simply about reproduction, what happens to the LGBT+ community? Does their sexual health not matter as much as a straight couples does? No, it matters just as much.
It's one of the things the system needs to improve on, sure, they can look up things they need to know online. But if their minority is not even acknowledged in sex ed, what message does that give to heterosexual children on whether an orientation is 'superior' to others?

I'm guessing their bodies will work the same way. We're not even taught about masturbating, everything is either changes to bodies or reproducing. There's nothing about sex for pleasure or whatever, not even anal sex.

Reply 16

Original post by Monument14

That's evident of the issue we have here :biggrin:

My sex ed was that you should wait until marriage- I learnt practically everything else in Biology, which was poor for what it's worth. In regard to 'tumblrisms' I was merely saying that if I had not had been exposed to the right content at the right time, such as vlogs by youtubers like Laci Green or Hannah Witton, I would probably be as ignorant on such subjects as the rest of my peers.

Are you saying I'm ignorant because I don't know about asexuality? Are you asexual yourself? I believe that people can be pansexual in that you can be attracted to anything... look at nature for instance.... any asexual animals will die out quickly and not spread their genes.

I just haven't seen the research done to conclude that asexuality exists in a genetic way, which is what most asexual people believe...

Scientists recently isolated a gene in humans which could be a "gay gene" although not conclusive I think if we found out being gay was genetic then it would definitely be better for everyone

Reply 17

OP

Original post by Schrödingers Cat

Are you saying I'm ignorant because I don't know about asexuality? Are you asexual yourself? I believe that people can be pansexual in that you can be attracted to anything... look at nature for instance.... any asexual animals will die out quickly and not spread their genes.

I just haven't seen the research done to conclude that asexuality exists in a genetic way, which is what most asexual people believe...

Scientists recently isolated a gene in humans which could be a "gay gene" although not conclusive I think if we found out being gay was genetic then it would definitely be better for everyone

I am not saying that you specifically are ignorant (and I am pansexual, not asexual) I am merely stating that there is a broad sense of ignorance across the board when speaking of orientation. I respect that you are uncertain of asexuality, and I am unsure of asexuals all believing that their orientation is a result of genetics.

However, it has been proven scientifically that there are individuals who do not encounter sexual feelings or arousal towards others who they are attracted to.

Demi-sexuality is part of the asexual umbrella as sexual attraction for them is difficult/impossible unless they have developed a deep emotional or romantic attraction to a person.
Asexuality is a valid orientation, despite its lack of scientific 'evidence', besides, human emotion and the varying spectrum's of attraction are practically impossible to scientifically validate.

I understand that it may be beneficial for homosexuals to have genetic evidence of their orientation, but that would isolate orientations that are not straight or gay.

I think that because orientation is so varied and fluctuating, the education system needs to at least brush upon the fact that a lot of people will not find their sexuality defined with a label, and acknowledge that there is so much differentiation in regards to attraction in order for young people who are discovering themselves to not feel forced to fit into one category or another.

Reply 18