Skip to main content

Naming modern SexEd. Does the name matter?

What's in a name?

I regularly run into the problem of giving a concise but comprehensive name to the work I try to do about sexual health and wellbeing (see I just tried to summerise it in 4 words) but every term I use seems to fall short of fully explaining the field. Every worker in this field of knowledge of biological, sociological, emotional, technological and probably some more -icals related to reproduction has their own personal favourites.

My favourite is Sex and Relationship Education. Short and simple but not necessarily very complete in covering all I work on when I have lessons covering individual self esteem, sexting and the distortions of pornography. Most names in the field have a history and reason for their particular emphasis. For example my favourite name for my work emphasis a core approach that I will only talk about sex as part of a larger curriculm which includes discussion on healthy relationships. I fully believe this is a key learning point for young people.

Thinking of some over common terms (especially in the USA) "Abstience Only" "Abstience Plus" "Comprehensive Sex Education". By someones chosen name you can oftern guess alot about their approach.

So when I read this article from The Guardian I wondered what is the history of this name? What does the name tell me?

"Comprehensive Sexuality Education"

Now education is pretty straight forward and comprehensive is often uses to explain the principle of "more then just bare bones of biology". The more unique term is sexuality. Last year I attended a sexual health training course ran by ACET NI in central Asia. They had a day focusing on what they called Sexuality. This term got lost in translation as the russian term used seemed to mean soley orientation. The ACET NI tram wanted to explain something more complex about the universal human condition of seeking contact with others. Expressed in a multitude of ways. Another term for this could be relationality.

So when this article says sexuailty are they using the term primarily for orientation or a more larger idea. If it is just orientation why have they identified this as a significant enough single topic to single out? If it is wider then orientation what point are they making with the name? Personally I have found peoples reactions to this term so mixed and confussed I avoid it whilst covering the material others would title sexuality.

I think that naming sexual health educational work will continue to be a mixed bag. But the universal need we have all identified is that the SexEd of the past is not enough. Young people deserve more and what ever you title it we have a duty to do better.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Agree - Disagree Sex and Relationship Statements

Today I shared another resource listing the agree disagree statement I often use in Relationship lessons. I find agree disagree activities as a bit of a two edge sword. Sometimes they are great and sometimes they just seem flat. 


I think agree/disagree activities work well if young people in the group do not all think the same. The true value in agree/disagree activities is the discussion it can stir up. The discussion is the point where young people learn things and develop their attitudes. The statements need to be crafted to try and divide opinion and stir up this discussion. When the statements do not divide group opinion then rarely will I get a good follow up discussion. The problem is that the statements that work well for one group do not work for another group. 

The temptation is to try and pick truly controversial issues but I have had as much success with the historically controversial issues (abortion, porn etc) as the more standard issues (loyalty, respect, condoms, etc). T…

Playing with figures of sexual health

A single research project can be reported on in different ways depending on what you want to do. Take the following two articles both reporting on the same research by the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine. The research shows how many girls in the study thought the HPV vaccine also reduced their risk of catching other STIs.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083260/One-teenage-girls-thinks-HPV-vaccine-cuts-risk-contracting-STDs.html
http://www.healthnews.com/en/news/Some-Girls-Overestimate-HPV-Vaccine-Protection/3hFUdOev1E8wSjg313QPZq/ 

The daily mail report emphasis 1 in 4, I believe this is because they are trying to show how it is a big problem. Where as Health News states "show that a small percentage of girls" I believe this is because they are trying to show it is not a big problem. Both quoting the same study with the same figure of 23.6% of girls having the HPV vaccine believing it will reduce their risk of catching other STIs. 

Now this is a common o…

The need to talk about porn and release all the data

Today childline launched anew campaign (FAPZ)to help young people make sense of the powerful influence online porn can have on young people. I welcome any new or renewed effort to help tackle this issue. What ever adults personally think about adults consuming porn, it clearly is not meant for young people. Below is a tweet from Simon Blake (CEO of Brook) Agree @NSPCC we must talk about porn at home, school & community. Whatever you think about porn it is not place CYP should learn about sex
— Simon Blake (@Simonablake) March 31, 2015 It is very worrying to hear Childlinereporting high numbers of calls to their phone line where online porn is a key issue. And this will just be a tip of the iceberg of the influence porn is having. When I talk about Childline in high schools I have meet many young people who think its not for them because they aren't a child so they wont ring it. Such a shame. 

However, the NSPCC could strengthen their campaign by releasing the full details of the…