Sex ed:

domC · 17-11-11 21:34:28

Sex ed seems like a topic that comes up often implicitly in the conversations that happen here. Lately, it's been something I've thought a lot about because it's relevant to my day life when I'm not moonlighting as someone more interesting here on the boards. I do think sex ed's important and my Catholic schools did a shit job at imparting sex information, beyond the usual scare tactics. We had deportment classes with experts who taught us to sit with our legs closed, but I don't remember an educator coming in to talk about sex, apart from the requisite talk about how our bodies are changing when we were in year six and a very rushed, not very coherent talk about the importance of condoms in year seven. Any real knowledge of sex I picked up on my own, but I don't think it's right to expect all kids to do that and looking at my cohort now, I can see how some of us know more about the ethics of sex, the issues of sex, the complications of sex and have better feelings about sex than others. Good sex ed won't give that to everyone, but it should try to.

I used to like the idea of peer-led sex ed, because that seems to be what students prefer and in educational terms, that's good pedagogy, because students are going to own what they're learning and, in my mind, it was impossible for a teacher to engage in authentic teaching (let's just drop some buzzwords around) when it came to sex ed. With that said, apparently peer-led sex ed is more effective, but to be specific - it's more effective in establishing conservative norms and less effective in imparting factual information (http://her.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/4/481.short).

So this morning, I read about a 47 year old male English teacher, in a private Quaker school, who models exactly what I want sex ed to be but never thought possible: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magaz … wanted=all

It takes a really special kind of teacher to be able to run a class like that. You couldn't just devise a unit of work based on this guy's course and then send it out to every school expecting to get the same response. You need a teacher who commands the respect of students, who is "authentic" (there's that word again) and whose bluntness and honesty is able to cut through students' own barriers so that real discussion can take place. In some ways, I think it works better with a male teacher, because his strict feminist politics give the whole thing new credibility - the male students are going to respect him because he's a man who is going to model appropriate behaviour for men and the female students are going to respect him because he's clearly on their side and he's challenging the status quo.

I'm curious to hear what other people think. When I read that article, I had a mental tick-list of all the things I thought sex ed should cover and was amazed to read on and find every single one ticked off.

blissed · 17-11-11 23:19:27

Oooh yess he's good! here he is live. Some of the more difficult male teens he wants to reach may think he's gay and so not see him as a roll model but I think he's really smart and my hunch is he'll overcome their prejudice by showing them in a positive way how little they know and affording them respect and placing smarts as the desired vehicle for gaining kudos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkUJdBkTDpE

.

Last edited by blissed (17-11-11 23:24:10)

WLV612 · 18-11-11 14:16:27

domC,

Just wrote a long reply and went back to the NYT link to make sure I had my facts correct and, duh, I lost my post.

Quickly then; Great post, excellent article on Mr. Veracchio and his efforts and a quick to IFM for these forums that provide a good setting for insightful thought and grounded dialogue.

Might repost after a bit but I have a full day.

Well done.

DW

domC · 20-11-11 06:38:14

Thanks for sharing that YouTube link, Blissed. I had a really quiet night last night, so I watched all of it (it goes for almost two hours!) and was impressed. Vernacchio talks about the five different types of language we use for sex (slang, secret language, archaic language, medical language and romantic language) and rather than advocating the use of only one, suggests that we should become multilingual and able to use all, depending on context and timing. That was a really interesting concept to me - I fall on slang a lot and am okay with medical language, but figured the others were extraneous and possibly damaging, but no, there are times and places when they are appropriate, too. I particularly like that Vernacchio is realistic about sex - he knows that kids are deeply interested in it, that most want to experiment and that that's ok, but that children and some teens don't really have the skills or experience to handle the emotions that are sometimes involved with sex. With that in mind, he stresses that part of talking to kids and teenagers about sex involves offering them reassurance and emotional guidance, not just telling them to not have sex or to have "safer" sex. As far as his sexuality goes - I think kids respect teachers and adults who are honest about their sexuality but also, that when you talk to kids with guards down, they may get so caught up in the discussion they forget things like the man who's talking to them about having sex with women is actually gay. In that original article I posted, one (male) student who shares quite different views to Vernacchio said that he genuinely respects his teacher's opinions and Vernacchio was able to challenge this kid's views (something else that comes out in that YouTube clip: it's okay to challenge kids and to push them to really think through their actions). The fact that the teacher was gay didn't seem to matter - what mattered was that the teacher was still a good male role model.

WLV612: glad you liked it! There are few things more infuriating than losing a long post.

#1 17-11-11 21:34:28

Sex ed:

#2 17-11-11 23:19:27

Re: Sex ed:

#3 18-11-11 14:16:27

Re: Sex ed:

#4 20-11-11 06:38:14

Re: Sex ed:

Board footer