Explicit Sex Ed material for 5 years olds!!!

[vintageteacups]

sex ed for 5 years olds

I think this is extremely wrong on so many levels. Would you seriously like your 5 yr olds to be told about sex like this???

[Chil1234]

It's the DM.... use it to wrap chips and not for accurate information on education strategy.

[GregorSamsa]

OFGS, it's a Daily Mail link. What were you expecting, moderation and balanced views?

One of those pictures they're having 9 kinds of kittens about is taken from Mummy Laid an Egg. It's hardly The Story of O for 3yo, really not.

And actually yes, I am fine with my 5yo being given calmly-explained factual information about where babies come from. Nobody's actually suggesting lessons in dogging or BDSM for KS1.

Grow up.

[Mummynumber2]

I saw this thread title and the first thing that came into my head was 'good god, looks like someone's been reading the Daily Mail again'. And I was right

[gramercy]

I'm with the OP but sadly there is a group who will vocally berate you for your views. Even sadder is that there are eejits on local councils who truly believe that sex education at 5 years old is necessary.

[vintageteacups]

Actually, in Lincolnshire they are already showing graphic videos to 7 years olds of people having sex.

Forget it - don't post any more.
MN is sooooooooooooooo snobby sometimes it makes me laugh.

Perhaps this link from the Guadian will be less trashy here

[vintageteacups]

Guardian I mean

[Mamaz0n]

i can see nothing i would be unhappy for my (now 6) year old DD seeing.
In fact i think she is already better informed than those links.

[vintageteacups]

Thing is that far more young people are sexually active today than say 30/40 years ago, which was when they had hardly sex ed at all.

I don't think reducing teenage pregnancies (and let's face it, the UK has the highest number in Europe) can be done through sex ed; it's about today's 'don't give a toss about anything' society that's done it.

[Mamaz0n]

teacups - its not about snobbery.

It is about the sensationalist slant that the DM put on every article. It is very easy to read a headline from them and be shocked by it. that is their hope.

If you see a headline from the DM and then do a bit more reading from elsewhere you usually find out that it is not quite as bad as they are reporting.

the DM uses healdines like "chocolate causes cancer" when actually there was a very small study from sri lanka saying that in a study of 10 people they have found that if you eat 3lb of chocolate a day you have a 1% chance of getting cancer.
So actually you discover that it is totally blown out of proportion and you shouldn't have gotten so scared in the first place.

DYSWIM?

[DiscoDaisy]

I'd like to know where these 5 and 6 yr olds are that are doing sex ed as none of mine did it at school at that age.

[vintageteacups]

Even the wording though mamazon is crap;

"your dad's penis moved gently inside your mum's vagina and the sperms flowed out"

flowed out of what....the vagina????

Really badly worded.

[meditrina]

Thanks for posting the Guardian link.

As parents probably don't select their primary school on its SRE curriculum, it's probably worth finding out when your particular school covers what. I did that when eldest was in year 4 and I realised I didn't know - what the school said was absolutely fine. (And far less graphic than the version one child shared in the playground).

[vintageteacups]

mamazon I know what you mean, yes, but I was specifically focussing on the actual leaflet, which you cannot deny is real.

[Mamaz0n]

I would say that 40+ years ago women were scared of sex. It was taboo and not to be discussed in polite society.

I believe knowledge is power and the more informed you are on a subject the better you are able to make good choices.

so i don't want to return to a time where children remain ignorant of the facts and just rely on playground whispers. Especially in a world where porn is so prevelant and children are more and morelikely to build their knowledge and understanding of sex from a super skinny, cosmetically enhanced and depressingly misgynist film of a woman being smiling at the camera whilst multiple men use her as a receptical.

[seeker]

I read the thread title and made a bet with myself that the thread would be about a story from the Daily Mail. I was right.

[littleducks]

I wouldnt be happy with my 5 year old being shown picture like those on the daily mail link. It does later state that they are from resources for over 7 though.

I dont like the 'Mummy laid an egg' book at all, though I know it is very popular. I dont agree with the cartoon characters having sex on a skateboard picture being apropriate.

I want to teach sex as being for adults and dont think that the childlike drawing and the playing on a skateboard reflect that.

I alsoi think its far to young to need to know what a prostitute is

[seeker]

The leaflet isn;t intended for 5 year olds, you loons!

Primary schools go from 4/5 to 10/11, in case you hadnt noticed.

[superv1xen]

omg i am sorry, i know its the DM, but that "material", uuurrrgh, ick :(

and personally i think 5 IS too young for sex ed.

[vintageteacups]

"Another, called The Primary School Sex And Relationships Education Pack by HIT UK, includes material to allow children aged five to 11 to learn about different sexual positions and prostitution. you loon seeker

[seeker]

I repeat - the leaflet isn;t intended for 5 year olds, you loons!

And what the article, and ther Chrisian Institute conveniently fails to point out that it's called "sex and relationship" education, and at 5 the emphasis is very much on "relationships". That is friends, family, all that sort of stuff.

Don't be suckered by the partical repeoring of vested interests.

[Bramshott]

I'd be frankly amazed if anything like that was shown to infants, but there is a world of difference between a 5 yr old and an 11 yr old. Even the DM admits that this material (as shown under it's headline as "cleared for 5 year olds" ) is for junior-aged kids.

I would be totally happy for my Yr 3 daughter to be shown stuff like this, although I guess that most primary schools don't really cover sex-ed until Yr 5 & 6.

[BaroqueAroundTheClock]

seeker - me too

I nearly PMSL @ the space hopper and balloon positions

Not sure what the problem is of the picture of mum and dad in bed together...........surely most children by 5 have encountered a scene similar to that before by walking in on their parents?

Badly written article anyhow as has been pointed out all the material together has been recommended for "7+" that doesn't mean that those bits they've chosen to show us in the sensationalist DM WILL be shown to children from YR2 - those bits might not actually be used until YR6!

[squeaver]

My 6 yo knows pretty much everything that's in the material shown there (certainly on the "mechanics" of reproduction). Why? Because she asked me and I answered her.

[Bramshott]

I think the wider issue (which I know we've debated before) is whether providing clear information about sex to primary-aged children protects them and demystifies it, or makes them more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviour at a younger age. I take the former view, but clearly the DM and the Christian Institute take the latter.