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

Review of Channel 4's Sex in Class

Review of Channel 4's Sex in Class from a relationship and sex educator's perspective. In this review I will try and bring my perspective as a relationship and sex educator to look at Channel 4's one off show Sex In Class . The show is about a Belgian sexologist Goedele Liekens  testing out her approach to relationship and sex education for 15-16 year olds at a Lancashire school. You can read some great overall reviews from Jules Hillier at Brook  and  Sam Wollaston at the Guardian   of the show. In this blog I am trying to focus specifically on my my perspective as a relationship and sex educator on Goedele's content and approach.  Goedele Liekens with her charges in Sex in Class. Photograph: Matt Squire The show starts with a pretty unsurprising statistic of " 83% of kids have seen porn by the time they are 13" (source not cited) and goes on to show how teachers at this school don't think current RSE is good enough and also gives some quotes f

The need to talk about porn and release all the data

Today childline launched a new 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 Childline reporting 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 th

A RSE reading list

Sometimes people ask me what reading I recommend around RSE, so I thought I would put together a bit of a list.  Key (free) articles and reports  Young people’s RSE UK poll  Sex Education Forum (2018) RSE outcome variations due to facilitator differences  Young et al (2018) What do young people think about their school-based sex and relationship education? A qualitative synthesis of young people's views and experiences Pound et al. (2016) Review of sexual abuse in schools and college s Ofsted (2021) National and International RSE Guidance  UNESCO international guidance on RSE  UNESCO (2018) England   Department for Education full guidance on statutory relationships education, relationships and sex education (RSE) and health education  Department for Education (2019) Wales Curriculum for Wales guidance and code for Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE)  (Consultation stage) Welsh Government (2021)  Scotland  Guidance for teachers on the conduct of teaching relationships, sex