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

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

A good question about Aims

I was recently asked this question and it made me think long and hard. Read my response below it. *I would like to know more about your overall goal - in other words what is it you are trying to change. Do you consider it is more about raising awareness or changing behaviour (I am sure there are elements of both) and are you clear about the changes you want to see as a result of what you do - it will be very hard to measure the effect/impact of what you are doing without knowing this. I would say that changing behaviour is my goal, firstly by changing attitudes towards sex and relationships and secondly by equipping them with skills that change their behaviour to stay safer. For me the 3 changes I want to see are - a greater recognition of the emotional impact of sexual activity - a delay of a young persons first sexual experience - a greater proportion of young people using protection correctly when they are sexually active My biggest worry is how to measure these three changes?