info-172-463436 Childhood sexuality has been around a lot longer than teenage fashion.This show points the finger squarely at an industry that is meeting a demand.Scaremongering and witch hunting about who is feeding off the nation's children is a ruse.Tabloid TV is abusing its remit to point the finger at the fashion industry.The biggest Paedophile is the tabloid media.Young girls will be queueing up in their droves to take their clothes off for this production company and it's ilk.To pretend it's the fashion industry makes me want to puke.It's not a show, it's a mask.

mimi_murlough First the good part: The Sex Education Show is not only entertaining, but frank and enlightening as well. For someone who is well out of school and still a virgin, I can safely say that it competes well with the school education on the subject as well as giving plenty of new information even if you're used to talk about more than the basics. Anna and her interviewees is possibly the best part, as they complete the bare facts with an open atmosphere and offers a chance to correct the twisted image that most people have of sex. This is really worth a watch for anyone, regardless of age or experience.That said, the show becomes more conservative the more you look at it. While this may be a step up from the run of the mill sex education, it still follows the same pattern. I haven't watched all seasons, but the treatment of gay/bi sexuality so far is incredibly disappointing. There is a clear tendency to either ignore that it exists or when dealing with it at all, Anna is clearly talking to a presumed straight audience about gay/bi people – they don't exist in this immediate reality, in other words. Why is this important? Because this is 12% of our youths who don't learn how to practice safe sex! Especially for women, there is virtually no advice on the matter even when turning to the LGBT community (which we shouldn't have to). This earnest attempt at preventing STIs is therefore in this case practically useless. A major cause to this may be the gross simplification of sex as penetration, which will limit the viewer's perception of sex to perhaps not recognizing safer alternatives as fulfilling. It also contributes to excluding gay/bi viewers from the show, which becomes disturbingly clear when you've watched episode upon episode with extensive info on penetrative sex, only to have lesbian sex summed up as "oral sex, mutual masturbation and use of toys" in a throwaway Q&A.The goal of making teenagers use their sexuality sensibly is probably further undermined by what I in a bad mood could call naiveté. For example, there's a hint of moral panic that surfaces from time to time and undermines the communication with the viewer. The aim seems to be abstinence for the kids, and porn is treated with outrage but there's never an explanation for it – the viewer is supposed to accept those views without understanding why. What's even worse a problem is the parent's role as the primary teacher for these things ("Ask a parent to be with you while looking at our site"). This is basically making the kids' education dependent on an open minded parent, which far from everyone has. If anything, the fail to pass compulsory sex education shows that dependency on goodwill is working more against than for the show's goal.So will is it worth watching, then? My answer would be yes, it's worth a shot if only to build confidence in your own sexual life even if you're not straight (to a limited extent). Three things are worth bearing in mind, though. One, your sexuality is something that concerns you, an only you know when you are ready to know or do something, not your parents. Two, promiscuity and porn are not things to be seen in black and white. The show is bad at explaining it, so you'll have to look up the harmful and the good parts on your own, from balanced sources (that is, not Playboy). And finally, while Anna may be talking as if the whole audience is nothing but straight kids, you know better. Gay/bi viewers, this isn't meant for us, which for a show focused on sexuality is baffling, not natural. Straight viewers, you have to think for yourselves and realize that despite the show's instances of "spot the gay" and only intentionally showing LGBT people when their sexuality is the subject, the reality is that they aren't a different species from somewhere else. They grow into being who they are in your immediate reality as your classmates, siblings or neighbors, and it's pure chance that this isn't you watching a sex education meant for everyone and feeling like an extraterrestrial.

Jackson Booth-Millard You would think that would know everything about sex, whether you have had it or not, but even I didn't know certain things, and I'm not a teenager any more. This educational programme, presented by Anna Richardson, with the knowledge of Dr. Radha Modgil, invites UK teenage students, aged 14-16, to a special sex education lesson with a difference. That difference being that they present them with nude models, male and female, young and old, pregnant and not, to teach them everything about the body and anatomy, how it changes with age, how to fertilise and make a baby, and much more besides. The programme also sees how people from all walks of life get on in their sex lives, and it does not matter your age, body size, and whether they are disabled mentally or physically. This is a very informative programme that gives you all the facts and advice you could ever want to know about everything to do with sex, I always loom forward to seeing how much I already knew, and whether I can learn something else. Very good!

ninjaalexs The Sex Education Show vs Pornography is a spin-off from The Sex Education Show. Both programmes aim to educate teenagers in all aspects of sex, sexuality and related issues. They are presented in a way which is light and accessible. The Sex Education Show vs Pornography focuses solely on issues related to pornography and teenagers. The issues relate to how porn can affect teenagers perceptions of sex. Issues covered include: body image (i.e. how porn stars bodies are "perfect" and non-porn stars bodies are not), health issues and the type of porn watched.The programme has a light format. Anna Richardson is a chirpy and bubbly host but she also grates after a while. There's also a few laughs to be had at the teenagers embarrassment at seeing real nudity (via video link). There's also some good information offered to those not in the know. I think this programme could be a useful teaching aid in school and its certainly better than some of the boring dross I had to sit through.The programme I'm sure will be useful to both teenagers and parents. However, I found it to be quite negative and biased towards the porn industry. The porn industry may have its faults and it should be borne in mind that porn is aimed and largely watched by adults. This programme (or certainly Anna Richardson) seemed to be saying that compulsory filtering or prevention (to stop children accessing porn) should be in-built in computers; this would surely be a burden to adults who wish to view such material. An interview also took place with a male and female couple who star in porn. Unfortunately, the interviews seemed to be constructed in a way as to only focus on the negative aspects (e.g. long hours, hard work, a "straight" male said he is gay for pay etc) rather than some of the positives (e.g. good or at least decent wage, flexible(ish) working days, etc).Summary: Not a bad programme. Obviously of use to uninformed teenagers and parents but is let down by being to biased.