Stephen Fry backs P Tatchell's call to revise sex education

Lolololol @ the cross posted Python clip!!

And yet again the proof we live in the age when comedy is redundant. Did anyone post this from Monty Python’s Meaning if Life yet??

Except perhaps some immature, suggestive bravado by loud boys. Could you honestly imagine any girls, in this mixed sex setting, speaking up about their own pleasure?

Quite. Which is why the mention on the thread, from people who seem to think this is a good set of proposals, of how important it is that girls understand that their own sexual pleasure is important, is really striking an odd note.

It's like no one has actually met a mixed sex group of teenagers. Do you seriously think talking about mutual masturbation in a room where there are bound to be gobshite lads looking to impress each other is going to give girls the message that their pleasure is important? Whatever the lesson plan might indicate, I can promise you the girls in that room will hear loud and clear a very different message.

Why do so many gay men invest so much in the sex education of all children?

Tatchell’s proposal seems to assume a very old-fashioned classroom, where teachers divulge information to non-participating pupils.

I cannot for the life of me imagine many students wanting to speak up in these lessons. Except perhaps some immature, suggestive bravado by loud boys. Could you honestly imagine any girls, in this mixed sex setting, speaking up about their own pleasure?

People don't need to be having discussions with teachers about what get's non-personalised people excited.

I am really having a hard time thinking of kids that would want to discuss that with their teachers.

truthisarevolutionaryact none of that says anything at all about a teacher demonstrating masturbation.

While a hands-on all class orgy with the teacher joining in could be one way to cover that point it wouldn't be a very good way. Models, diagrams and non-personalised discussion about the wide variety of ways people get excited, the fact that what works for one person doesn't work for everyone and the need to listen to your own body and your partner and communicate with your partner would probably do a much better job.

advice on how to achieve mutually-fulfilling, high quality sex; including the emotional and erotic value of foreplay; the multitude of erogenous zones and how to excite them; and methods to achieve pleasure for one’s self and one’s partner.

From another standpoint too, how is this sort of thing, or discussions of how to masturbate, supposed to work in a school system that sees itself as being secular and serving a diverse multi-cultural society from all kinds of backgrounds and belief systems?

Absolutely FloralBunting It's the complete lack of boundaries - the assumption that it is a school's place to teach children about sexual pleasure in Tatchell's compulsory mixed sex groups.

SRE lessons need lengthy discussions about content, appropriate staffing, group composition, adult knowledge, how to answer questions, how to endure that discussions remained boundaried and age appropriate, how to manage groups with some children who were completely 'inexperienced' in relationships alongside others who were sexually active. Not to mention accommodating the needs of abused children, different religious / cultural beliefs, minimising personal disclosures so that nobody was subsequently targeted / bullied. Such a complex area. Tatchell's demands offer nothing to help.

I am a fairly broadminded woman who doesn't mind discussing sex, but even I would find a mixed sex classroom when I was 16, a mortifyingly embarrassing place to be discussing my erogenous zones and how to excite them.

Indeed FermatsTheorem On occasions, the teachers most desperate to teach sex education were the teachers who had to be actively prevented.
Health professionals were often (not always) the best, matter of fact adults when working with whole classes. Their neutrality, matter of fact approach and lack of a 'personal' relationship with young people in schools helps.

"...advice on how to achieve mutually-fulfilling, high quality sex; including the emotional and erotic value of foreplay; the multitude of erogenous zones and how to excite them; and methods to achieve pleasure for one’s self and one’s partner."

I'm fairly sure that's a lot of words to euphemistically cover wanking. This is not appropriate in schools. Really.

Here BoomBoomsCousin
RSE for pupils aged 16-plus should include advice on how to achieve mutually-fulfilling, high quality sex; including the emotional and erotic value of foreplay; the multitude of erogenous zones and how to excite them; and methods to achieve pleasure for one’s self and one’s partner.

It's a boundaries issue. You don't teach children / young people about giving sexual pleasure in compulsory lessons in schools. It's a predator's dream.

There is a strong argument for ensuring that young people have access to good quality sex education rather than accessing porn. But enforcing it in schools in compulsory mixed sex classes, removing parental rights to withdraw children thus ensuring that all children, no matter what their emotional development, any SEN, any religious factors MUST attend these classes is just crass.

Quote from the link in OP

"As well as warning pupils about the risks of sex, lessons should also inform older pupils about sexual pleasure and how to achieve it for both themselves and a partner, with the aim of helping them secure mutual sexual happiness"

That sexual pleasure for both partners - within a setting of mutual consent, respect, liking for one another and the absence of coercion of any sort - is the aim of having sex should be made clear. As the TED video upthread makes clear, there are far too many young women who think sex is about "giving him what he wants, or part of what he wants, to make him stay with you/get him out the door" (delete according to circumstances).

But I think bring the how into the classroom is wide-open to abuse - a tiny, but non-negligible minority of creepy teachers using it as a springboard for abuse, peer-on-peer abuse and humiliation in the class room - so many places this could go horribly wrong.

From what I have read on twitter, Peter Tatchell doesn't think you can catch STDs through oral sex, so I'm not sure that his opinion carries much weight.

I also suspect that his idea that people don't need to worry about contraception as long as they avoid PIV in sex has led to many pregnancies. "Don't worry, we'll stop before we go that far".

Peter tatchel gives not one fuck about the boundaries of women and girls. Gender all the way through it no mention of sex. He is is no position to provide resources about consent. It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

Where in the proposals is it suggested teachers demonstrate masturbation?

What matters is that the children's needs are at the centre - not the demands of adults...

Gosh, yes: This

Also remember this is the Sensible Generation. The rates of teenage pregnancy have fallen like a stone in recent years across the developed world in countries with very divergent SexEd policies.

Who is suggesting ignoring the reality of young people's lives? This whole thread is full of very specific issues in young people's lives that are relevant to these proposals.

Given that most kids nowadays get their sex education from porn and there are concerning surveys about young people's attitudes to and understanding of sex and, in particular, women's pleasure, I think there is clearly quite a lot of room for formal education to improve the information (and lives) of young people in this regard. Very few parents seem to do a good job and having a curriculum for the whole age group that emphasizes consent and mutual pleasure rather than scattered ideas from different parents will help with issues around peer pressure - which are a big deal when it comes to sexual relationships.

The details Thatchel outlines in his plan look like a reasonable starting point to me. There are issues - it seems to lack any respect for other viewpoints, doesn't seem to acknowledge the complexity of sexual feelings or experience and Thatchel's "opt out" idea shows his contempt for those with views different from his own. But I quite like some of it - emphasizing mutual consent, covering alternatives to penetration, etc. The devil's in the details, of course.

This is a Safeguarding nightmare. 16 year olds are immature and I don't know any teacher who'd think it appropriate to demonstrate masturbation to a mixed-sex group in the UK. As Peter Tatchell is promoting this, I'm seeing more red flags than a Chairman Mao May Day rally.

No is not a strong enough response to this proposal.

I note that one of Tatchell's views is that groups must be mixed sex and not single sex. And this is the issue with allowing the 'over invested' adults access to what happens in schools - it becomes an ideological issue for adults, ignoring the needs of children.
I've taught SRE in a number of schools and you need to be sensitive to many factors - the religious / cultural sensitivities of each group. The class dynamics, any sex imbalances, bullying / silencing cultures that can develop in a class as well as the tricky issue of gaining the confidence of parents. In one school, single sex groups were important in order to gain parental agreement. In another school, it was a mix of some single sex and some mixed sex discussions. There's no right answer.
What matters is that the children's needs are at the centre - not the demands of adults with dodgy histories.

Nothing new under the sun. Back in the day, we had The Little Red School Book which recommended taking drugs and experimenting with sex from an early age, and the highly recommended guide "Make It Happy," which said sexual experimentation between brothers and sisters was 'normal.'

The only words that need to be said, over and over are Age-Appropriate.

E.G, small kids have not the slightest interest in how the baby got in there. But they really want to know how it gets out.