A bit of a reality check for those who think talking about non-hetero sexualities in schools is incompatible with “values” is some recent research from Latrobe University on young people, same-sex attraction, discrimination and health. This study [.pdf file] replicates a large research project done in 1998 in an attempt to find out whether anything has changed for the better. The full report is online with details of the sample and methodology, as well as the findings.
44% of the sample of 1749 reported verbal abuse and 16% physical assault, figures little changed from 1998:
Verbal abuse extended beyond name-calling and insults to include threats and rumour mongering. Physical abuse ranged from having clothes and possessions damaged to rape and hospitalisation for injuries. The most common site for this abuse, as in 1998, was school and this remains the most dangerous place for these young people to be with 74% of all the abuse happening there.
Consequences of abuse included self-harm and suicide attempts, with 35% of the abused cohort reporting such behaviours. Those who had been abused “fared worse on almost every indicator of health and well-being than those who had not”.
The research was funded by the Commonwealth Government, and I hope State and Federal Ministers take note. I also think that the onus lies sqarely on columnists and politicians who decry any discussion of non-hetero sexualities in schools to explain how such bullying and abuse can be dealt with. Harrassment, vilification, and harm are not values.
Mark, this is all very depressing, but it shows in part how ineffective schools are in their ‘social education’ programs. As I said elsewhere, probably a sign that the approach is too abstract and conceptual.
I’ve just been over to Toowong for a haircut and on the way over I heard an item on Body Odour And Attraction on Life Matters with Yolanda Martins at Flinders University. The research comes out of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia and is attempting to see whether the sexual preferences of gays and heteros are reflected in their preferences in body odour. They took samples of underarm odours with cotton wads and bottled them. The preferences of the sniffing volunteers strongly matched their sexual preferences.
They are trying to work out whether this reflects biological differences. The short answer is not necessarily. The preference of gays for gays could relate to remembered pleasurable experiences in the company of gays. Against that, it appeared that gays and heteros, male and female, do give of odours that identify them as such, as do, they say, families.
I think it is also an indication that we are just fumbling around in trying to work out how the brain works.
Mark, this is all very depressing, but it shows in part how ineffective schools are in their ‘social education’ programs. As I said elsewhere, probably a sign that the approach is too abstract and conceptual.
I’ve just been over to Toowong for a haircut and on the way over I heard an item on Body Odour And Attraction on Life Matters with Yolanda Martins at Flinders University. The research comes out of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia and is attempting to see whether the sexual preferences of gays and heteros are reflected in their preferences in body odour. They took samples of underarm odours with cotton wads and bottled them. The preferences of the sniffing volunteers strongly matched their sexual preferences.
They are trying to work out whether this reflects biological differences. The short answer is not necessarily. The preference of gays for gays could relate to remembered pleasurable experiences in the company of gays. Against that, it appeared that gays and heteros, male and female, do give of odours that identify them as such, as do, they say, families.
I think it is also an indication that we are just fumbling around in trying to work out how the brain works.