We dont get much 'education' out of Sex Ed! Wouldn't we learn a lot more from coursework, to wit: RELATIONSHIPS IN MODERN CULTURE?

[martyfellow]

WHAT"S MISSING?

Most of us are forced to take Sex Education classes, but we actually learn the mechanics of sex 'out there', in the day of the Internet.

But how many of us are TOTALLY UNPREPARED for the challenges of RELATIONSHIPS. In fact, we fall into the trap of thinking that knowing the anatomy of sex DOES somehow give us knowledge about human relationships, and that is absolutely NOT TRUE.

Just take the example of a friend of mine who went through a long, painful divorce. Among other sleazy moves, his wife invented out of thin air allegations of abuse of the children by him.

Now, I knew that divorce atttorneys coach women to make up such allegations to gain an advantage in negotiations, since guys are mostly seen as guilty without any proof in our court system.

But most of us don't get relationship PRACTICE. Things like this come at us out of the blue..hopefully, they don't happen a second time! My friend is still in shock about it. He has limited visitation rights regarding his kids as a result, and I'm not sure he will ever get over this. IN fact, HE was the one who wanted children; he was older, his wife only reluctantly agreed to have kids with him.

Or, this example: An old friend got sudden promotion at her job, and is now an executive. She immediately cut off all contact not only with her former work friends and colleagues--no, she's also adopted a whole new persona with even people not connected in any way with her job.

Now she speaks in sort of a rehearsed, declamatory way. She is judgmental about not only what happens currently, but even what happened years ago. She insists on revisiting and rehashing minor past disagreements and makes them into such major issues that she will (and likely wants to) lose out of her PERSONAL friends from her earlier, lower-status days.

While I could help my friend through his divorce, I've NEVER seen the like of this latter scenario, and have no idea how to address the situation, really none. I've even asked about it on this site.

RELATIONSHIPS ARE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS

Few relationships are really unique. Our common social conditions puts tight restrictions on the range of emotions and experiences we have in any given society.

There are, therefore, PATTERNS that most of us can see in relationships. It's how we answer questions on this site, for example! We don't KNOW the people involved, but we see patterns in their narrative that lead us to predict what may happen and then try to guide them to the right conclusions.

Most of us have difficulty because we encounter a problem we haven't had to face before. My friend, above, hopefully won't go through another divorce. I don't expect to have to deal with another friend who changes their personality completely because of their work position.

But someone with experience in relationship counseling could certainly organize relationships by a dozen or maybe two dozen themes, much like the categories we have here. Dating, Family and Friends, Break-up--all these social constructs feature patterns that a lot of us can see. SOME behavior (don't say I said ALL) can be PREDICTED based on those patterns. Certainly my friend's divorce experience is a fairly predictable common situation these days. My other promoted friend, maybe less so, but someone with a background in counseling could probably place my experience into the context of a behavior pattern.

In daily life, we refer to those patterns constantly. Rebound, shy guy, player..these are relationship patterns we refer to with a certain shorthand.

Why not require a course in modern relationships, starting at middle school age, but continuing to be refined into adulthood?

I think the benefits for society as a whole would be huge. Instead of trying to 'wing it' on one's own, people who have a reference to consult, and at least basic understanding of the most common relationship trends and patterns.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Sex Ed does nothing to teach things that matter: Healthy relationship dynamics, time management in a relationship and why it matters, self attitude adjustment, money management, etc.

Instead, it appears to be geared toward:
- Destroying traditional families
- Destroying objective morals
- Spreading chaos
- Creating future customers for Planned Parenthood
- Corrupting minors
- Spreading perversions
- Setting traps to weed out idealists
- Destroying bonds of trust between parents and their children, making children more vulnerable to harmful outside influencers
- Preaching empty, romantic humanist gibberish to instill rebellion in teens against any who would say anything at all to offer them actual protection.
- Turn these demoralized brats into cash cows any way possible.

"The Naked Communist" even hinted at these becoming "future education goals" for the western world - way back in the 1950s!

[Hayleyaaa]

Good thoughts. Where would you suggest this theoretical relationship course be offered? If its just something that's not compulsory (in school) in my opinion I don't think many people would take it or it would have a stigma like counseling/relationship can have. However if its offered in school I don't think teens often take any sex ed in school seriously. I remember it being in my class awkward and a joke for everyone, so taking a relationship course in school might not be the best age. Generalizing most wouldn't be mature enough to take what they learn seriously enough to use in the future.

[martyfellow]

More of a college level course, esp. in the USA. So many young people (but not only them) think they 'know it all' and don't need to study!

[Midget_Hug]

To be simplistic you're suggesting that basic sociology be mandatory. One problem with this is that you'll never have good data to teach; you say the following:

"Few relationships are really unique. Our common social conditions puts tight restrictions on the range of emotions and experiences we have in any given society."

This is very wrong. Life before the internet was different than life after, life prior to Twitter was different than life after, life before Tinder was different than life after and who knows what is next? The issues you're facing now are distinctly different from other problems specifically because they have generic solutions but not generic approaches.

For instance the divorce situation would have not been helped because even if things were in place that granted that knowledge it turns out that it would not have mattered. He needed legal information and knowledge of proof as well as perhaps knowledge of resources but sociology would do nothing unless he was trying to butter up the judge.

In the latter there's nothing to do; if the person seems eager to leave, leave, if they return humbled welcome them back and if not then don't; life goes on and nothing is lost. Sociology isn't required for that and likely wouldn't help you and relationship psychology might give you closure but it doesn't give you a method for dealing with it just an explanation as to why it occurs.

In reality it isn't "more knowledge" that will get you anywhere because just like you'll face things in a field you never faced in school so too will you face things in the world that you could not possibly be given even a semblance of preparation for. Let's say that humans really do invent a means of expedient transmission; significantly faster than flight now we need about two hours to make it to Tokyo from Washington D. C. yes? So, if this occurs, will the social dynamics of dating change?

Absolutely. And if it becomes cheap? Moreso. The entire world will change. What then would any lesson teach? It would be impractical. You could never keep up until there was basically a point in which it could not be improved and we are far from that point.

I do understand that sexual education, mechanics of anything really, isn't a gateway into the complexity of situations regarding the topic but that's the point of training in the first place; it arms you with the slightest advantage of what can occur and gives you the concrete basis of what is known rather than what shifts.

[martyfellow]

Thousands of times a day we answer questions based on our predictions of relationship patterns. Why couldn't those patterns be explained in course work? Most relationship problems CAN be SOMEWHAT predictable, since they're shaped by our social structure common to all of us.

[Midget_Hug]

The question you have consider is when we answer questions are we answering "complete" questions. I guarantee you we are not. Most of these questions are specifically predictable with outcome based on the fact that there are a limited number of options to begin with and then imperfect and distinctly limited data to work from.

The reality is that when you are asked for advice honesty is almost guaranteed to never appear; the amount of practical advice you can receive with good, accurate and viable meaning is really limited no matter who you are talking to whether it be a trained psychologist or your friend for 20 years. In essence the truth is no one can predict how things turn out; we can identify elements of trouble but those elements of trouble are going to be relatively useless in time of crisis meaning that they have to be dealt with prior.

Human relationships are simply too dynamic. Best friend of 30 years gets a promotion? Abandons everything. Loses job? Is repentant.

[Midget_Hug]

It's too complex, good sir, to even offer the most basic understanding of humans because human behavior and patterns just aren't easily attributed to people in general. Though I loathe to say it because I partially don't believe it personally, "Everyone is unique" isn't false.

[martyfellow]

Not repentant at all. And human relationships are usually NOT dynamic! Quite predictable, in fact.

[Midget_Hug]

I had thought that actually, of what could happen, after I posted. So many more options came to mind than repentance. Delusion. Anger. Fear. Humility. Violence. All options in different ways.

Regardless relationships are very dynamic. I think you're referring to predictive modeling which is not the same as stating that relationships are static and unchanging. They're not rocks. Even the medium of exchange shifts a lot let alone elements such as skill in various spheres of communication and personal skills.

To be blunt were they simple they'd be easy to fix.

[Nodachi]

I... don't think you can logistically teach this simply because there is no logic behind it in truth. There are no two people that are the same as one another. People value different things, and people take offense to different things. It's a bit personality dependent as well as to do a lot of the time with plain common sense - which is another thing you can't teach. You can't save people from themselves.

By trying to you're going to get dangerously close teaching morality policing and interfering ability to make their own distinction and choice of free will. Including the free will to make shitty decisions.

If we consider a scenario in which "X" is always objectively good, and "Y" is always objectively bad. There can be no areas of grey. And I would argue the grey bit is the most important bit to consider in terms of society and human interaction. Relationships at their core are often not logical by nature and different things work for different people. I think it's something that you are at risk of indoctrinating people with if you teach it in absolute terms.

The only real stuff you can teach is what is considered abuse, which is already taught. Simply because it uses source you can literally find built within the laws of society. In my school this was I was taught what domestic abuse, predatory behaviour and bullying was

Rather than having distinct strict classes, be willing to open up and make discussion if you have something to share. People might realise by extension then, I suppose. But that doesn't have to be in school. That can be anywhere. It can be at the park, at your hairdressers, on holiday or on the internet.

[Darkfairie17]

The problem is, teachers teaching sex ed are just teachers teaching sex ed. They aren't doctors, they aren't sex therapists. The same issue would arise if teachers focused on relationships vs. sex. So many of my teachers were not people who should be commenting on relationships.

I had some teachers who had very strained relationships or were unstable. So I would be scared to know what type of advice they would offer.

Those types of topics should be taught by someone who actually knows what they are talking about. I think that is the issue. Most teachers feel awkward about teaching kids about sex as it is. So it makes the whole thing harder for the kids to actually learn anything.

I definitely think that there should be a relationship component to sex ed because sex and relationships can go hand in hand.

[jazmiine]

The purpose of sex education is for people to understand how people can get pregnant it come up because of the rise of many people under age 18 getting pregnant it is to prevent accidental pregnancy, getting abortion etc. as for me it is also used to at least satisfy the curiosity of young minds.

If you want to learn relationship in modern society I personally think it is pointless because this kind of thing involves the heart and no one can predict what kind of relationship a single individual will face. no man out there lived long enough to be qualified as a relationship expert to each a dozen of people with different cultural value, principle, understanding, characteristics and personality. Even if we do have similar situation the outcome will always not be the same because people have thier own free will.

[martyfellow]

As I said, relationships are social constructs and we here on GAg CONSTANTLY make predictions based on patterns we have seen.

100% predictable, no, but it's certainly possible to see these patterns! That's why we have the categories we do, and so forth.

[jazmiine]

yup we do. however if it is taught in a class kind of situation not all have the same kind of situation. it can be possible perhaps if on a one on one session that is why psychologist, advisers etc. come in. Because everyone have their own unique situation don't lump each and everyone to have experience and will experience the same. and their are young people who do not or did not yet engage in any kind of personal, sexual relationship yet. At least for sexual education it is a fact and known in a scientific way and can be explained freely with correct evidence and accurate examples if possible because for relationships you cannot explain something that the heart only understand.

[martyfellow]

WE do it every day, thousands of times, just on this site alone!!!

[Belgie]

I look around at the amount of, quite frankly, bullshit, that is spread on this site, and this site is an *advice* site. I can't believe we'd find enough teachers qualified enough to teach it.

We'd have a nation of the equivalent of gym teachers teaching particle physics.

[John_Doesnt]

Sex-ed was supposed to be about teaching kids to use condoms so they don't get STIs and unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately religious people put an end to that with their abstinence programs.
Sex-ed has only become useless now. In the 70's it was very useful.

[CubsterShura]

Sex ed, not relationship ed.

I wish they taught more about sex tho. It never taught me so much stuff.

[martyfellow]

Most people learn from the Internet now...

[Anonymous]

yeah we should have education about it