new British sex ed pamphlet

[Bob S.]

I found something interesting that would probably never be done in the US. The Brits have put out sex ed pamphlet for teens that states that sex can be fun.

Bob

From AOL News (http://news.aol.com/article/british-sex-education-pamphlet/569023?icid=main|netscape|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fn ews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fbritish-sex-education-pamphlet%2F569023):

Flap Over British Sex Education Pamphlet
AOL News
posted: 7 HOURS 32 MINUTES AGO

(July 13) -- A new sex education pamphlet in Great Britain is raising eyebrows.
The recently released 'Pleasure,' from Britain's National Health Service, advises teachers, youth workers and parents to advise students on the benefits of an enjoyable sex life, the Times of London (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article6689953.ece) reported.

According to the Times, the pamphlet declares, "An orgasm a day keeps the doctor away," and questions why doctors don't commonly recommend "sex or masturbation twice a week" in addition to a healthy diet and physical activity.
The publication is part of a British government initiative to make sex education compulsory in schools.The sex education advices comes just a week after it emerged that teenagers who took part in a British government pregnancy-prevention initiative were twice as likely to get pregnant as those who did not, according to the London Daily Mai (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199132/NHS-recommends-pupils-orgasm-day-reduce-risk-heart-attack-stroke.html)l (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199132/NHS-recommends-pupils-orgasm-day-reduce-risk-heart-attack-stroke.html) says the advice comes just a week after.
Roger Ingham, a professor of health psychology who wrote the booklet's introduction and served as a content adviser, told Children and Young People Now (http://www.cypnow.co.uk/Archive/916747/Health---Lets-teach-sex-fun/) magazine, "One of the things young people say a lot is that the sex education they get is virtually meaningless, it's too biological and doesn't relate to how they are feeling."
The sex-positive approach is endorsed by Steve Slack, director of the University of Southampton's Center for Sexual Health Research, who said the pamphlet could encourage teens to delay sexual activity until they are sure they will enjoy it.
Though one school master, Anthony Seldon, told the Times he found the new pamphlet "deplorable," one woman defended the approach in a Children and Young People Now column (http://www.cypnow.co.uk/Archive/916738/joys-sex-explained/).
"'Pleasure' is no Kama Sutra for kids," Ruth Smith wrote. Instead, she said, the pamphlet is an effort to start discussion about youth sexuality. In the column, Smith said discussing pleasure could help children identify abuse from consensual activity.
"Not teaching young people that sex should be fun can do more harm than good," wrote Smith. "Helping young people to see sex as a positive choice, something to do when they're ready and not because of peer pressure, helps develop their confidence. This, in turn, equips them to discuss and practice safe sex."

[jon71]

Common sense really. I'd love to see it here but we still have too many fundys and close minded losers for that to happen anytime soon.

[Naturist Mark]

This "sex-positive" approach is what the abstinence-only people in America (AKA "ignorance-only") are afraid of in sex education. Most think that sex education is already about teaching kids to have sex rather than teaching them about the consequences and responsibilities. - It is often hilarious to hear them opining about sex education in public schools and realizing that they are speaking from a position of complete ignorance about sex education while proposing a policy of complete ignorance.

Now, in context, it appears that the British proposal is not really quite so "sex-positive" as the media report seems to indicate. But that probably doesn't matter - the issue has been framed as "British government teaching kids they have the right to have sex on a regular basis". They've already lost.

[MoonShadow]

Spot on, Mark!

I like what the British Health Services are trying to do. This is the best approach to dealing with any subject matter, actually: approach it from the positives and educate with the facts.

Sadly, here in the good ole US of A, the fundies (as jon71 said) hold a large and strong stranglehold on most of what goes on in schools.

The older I get, it seems the more backward we become in expanding our brain's knowledge base. :(

[Stu2630]

More irresponsible idiocy from our beloved NHS. Sex education is not in their remit - it's a matter for the Department for Education. The NHS can promote awareness of STDs etc, but that's as far as it is supposed to go.

People's sexual habits are closely linked to their cultural values, religious beliefs, upbringing and so on, and these are matters which should remain within the family. The NHS has no business interfering in this area. Glad I'm leaving the UK in 3-weeks!

Stu

[Redtan]

- It is often hilarious to hear them opining about sex education in public schools and realizing that they are speaking from a position of complete ignorance about sex education while proposing a policy of complete ignorance.

I agree with you Mark with one qualification. I think that your sentence should read: "a position of complete ignorance about sex while proposing...". I think it that underlying ignorance that comes through in the opposition to appropriate sex education.

[Bob S.]

Let me just say to everyone that I invited Stu to read this specific thread because he lives in the UK and has a teenage daughter.

I also agree with Mark. Sex education is woefully inadequate when it is only about the biology and people always saying "just say no." Not only does that not work, it has been found that teens who have made chastity promises can also have sex if they believe they have a significant relationship with the person.

Stu: "More irresponsible idiocy from our beloved NHS. Sex education is not in their remit"

No Stu, but teenage pregnancy is their realm. The health of children is part of what they need to deal with. Pregnant teens have more of a tendency to have less healthy children. They tend to hide their pregnancy longer, thus putting their babies in jeopardy. They hide it because they don't want to admit that they had sex, because it is a forbidden subject.

What's interesting is that you, like many parents, seem to be confused as to where the sex education should come from. You first say it should come from the schools, but then you claim that is should be a family thing. Guess what? You can't have it both ways. It is either a school thing or a family thing. The Dept. of Education has decided to take up the slack for the parents who decided to allow the schools to teach about this subject that they find uncomfortable. I would rather the schools stop teaching sex ed, but realize that many parents would fail in their role as a child's most important teacher.

In this case, the NHS has decided that the DoE was failing in its job. The teen pregnancy rate is higher than it is in the rest of Europe, so they have decided to try another tactic.

What is the sex education that children get in the schools, Stu? Why do you think the UK has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe? I know that the rate in the US is due to our puritanical attitudes regarding nudity and sexual discussions.

Bob S.

[BinCo]

I would rather the schools stop teaching sex ed, but realize that many parents would fail in their role as a child's most important teacher.

Bob S.

I don't agree. A parent is not usually up to date on the latest trends in teen sex and diseases. While many parents will say, use a condom. It does not take into effect any orally transmitted diseases and does not address the issues of non-intercourse sexual activities. Face it, who wants to think that their little girl is having anal sex?

Next take into effect the multitude of parents who believe in abstinence only, or the ones who reluctantly talk about sex and find out that the kid is already having sex, or the single dads who have daughters and the single moms who have sons or the parents who are so ashamed of sex that they slap their little girl for bringing it up (as my wife's mom did so many years ago). Their is too much misinformation already out there to leave it up to the parents alone.

Teaching kids the realities of sex is what schools are for, teaching kids the morals of sex is what parents are for.

[Bob S.]

BinCo, I was saying that I realize that many parents would fail in their responsibility to adequately teach their children about sex for the exact reasons you suggest, but mainly because they would just not want to talk about it.

Herein lies the conundrum that parents deal with: on the one hand, they have their own morals; on the other hand, the schools teach their own lessons. There will be differences between the two and parents are always getting upset over what the schools teach their children, but how many of those parents would actually take up the slack if the schools didn't teach them?

Bob S.

[walter05]

I must be in the minority here. I don't think my childrens' sex lives is any of the government's business.

A sex ed class with an explanation of anatomy and how it works is one thing.

Explaining how pro-creation works is one thing.

Explaining how to avoid unwanted pregnancies is one thing.

Explaining about STDs, the consequences, how to avoid is one thing.

Telling my kids to have sex or not have sex is none of the government's business.