Menstruation is Normal, in 1989 everyone knew, yet not today?

I'm going to come back to this again... In 1989, in a dusty second floor science room at what was Top Valley Comprehensive School I sat down with my then classmates and we had our first sex-education lesson.  Mr Simpson the (unfortunately) body odour riddled and forever exacerbated physics teacher had to teach us young folk about masturbation and menstruation, and ultimately where babies arrive from.

Not one picture of a stalk was had, not one allusion to fact, not one sugar coating, we had a video of (admittedly a cartoon of) a boy holding his penis and the narrator saying it's okay for this to feel good.  We had a young lady (again a cartoon) fondle herself and we were again told this was normal, we were shown putting condoms onto bananas to everyone's mirth as we'd mostly all seen and even used condoms before... This is Top Valley Estate bruv.

And the last part of this talk was about periods.  We were all told all girls start to have periods, it is normal, we were taught about pads, tampons and even moon cups.  We were told, point blank, about how much menstrual blood a girl should expect; and I remember a fair few of my female class mates blankly stating they would say that a vastly conservative estimate.

THIS IS 1989...

Let me make that clear, nineteen eighty-nine.

So, why the hell are articles like this appearing in 2018?


I am utterly baffled and confused by this... Was my school vastly a head of its time?  I don't think we were, we were a daggy comprehensive intended to turn our plasterers, car mechanics and dust-bin men.  It was not an Engineering specialist (read that as "turning out car mechanics") as it is now as an rebuilt academy.

What on Earth has happened in this time?

What has the Department of Education been up to?  How can I go back and check the 1989 Personal and Social education syllabus I was enrolled upon against today's?  Because I remember this episode.

I remember it as it made me vaguely uncomfortable, a period was something my mother had, with her big box of giant canoe like panty liners.  The pretty girls in class with me, they didn't have them, "old women" had them.  It was a genuine surprise, and it is one of the few times during my secondary education where I remember being taught something.

So why are kids today not being taught the same thing?  Again, why this retrograde step?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

C++ : Ignored qualifiers (-Wignored-qualifiers)

What is an ignored qualifier?  Well, in a class, lets have a student class: #include <string> class Student {     public:         const std::string Name;     private:         bool m_Present;     public:         Student(const std::string& p_Name)             :             Name(p_Name),             m_Present         {         }                 void SetPresent() { m_Present = true; }         void SetAbsent() { m_Present = false; } }; Now, we may want to access the present flag, therefore provide a function to do so:     bool Present() const { return m_Present } This function is telling the user of our class quite a bit, it tells them that the return type is boolean and that the calling of this function makes no changes to the class  contents (const trailing the parameter list). However, for me, this isn't quite right, I believe that we want to inform any user that the boolean returned is also constant, it does not change unless you alter the internal value with the "Set
Read more

C++: The Dilemma of using Exceptions

Image
As a C++ developer I've recently been in the midst of the Exceptions debate.  Exceptions as a feature of the C++ language have long divided the community, naively I've often put this down to their coming to the language from elsewhere (C perhaps) where exceptions were not the norm. This was a mistake, for in the projects I've previously worked upon the overhead of an exception compared to the ramifications of the error resulting in a crash have often totally outweighed the overhead, making deciding to employ an exception exceptionally easy (*bum bum*).  Exceptions were the norm, still are and should be to you too (according to the C++ Core Guidelines https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#Ri-except ). The difficulty, the dilemma if you will, comes not from the feature, but the cost.  If you application domain demands high performance you can not risk using exceptions, the argument carries on therefore whether in not using them to avoid
Read more

Development : Anti-Hungarian Notation

Whilst cutting code I employ a coding style, which I enforce, whereby I output the scope of the variable being used with a prefix. "l_" for Local "m_" for Member "c_" for constant "e_" for enum And so forth, for static, parameter and a couple of others.  I also allow compounds of these, so a static constant would be: "sc_" This is useful in many languages, and imperative in those which are not type strict, such as Python. Some confuse this with "Hungarian Notation", it's not.  Hungarian notation is the practice of prefixing a type notification to the variable name, for example "an integer called count" might be "iCount". I have several problems with anyone using Hungarian Notation, and argue against it thus. With modern code completion and IDE lookup tools this is really not needed, with useful and meaningful naming of your variables the type is not needed and finally there are multiple types with the s
Read more