Guardian interview with Juno Dawson

That's the thing, even if/when kids want to know they don't want to hear it from their teacher or from some random possibly not that old objectively but from their perspective ancient person the school has brought in. They need to hear the basic condoms and periods stuff so you should provide that anyway, but "let's talk about making sweet sweet love, students stuck in a lesson that they're not allowed to leave without possible getting detention, in florid detail" is going to provoke either disgust or deep awkwardness. So this is a classic case of people like Dawson being completely unable to see themselves the way other people see them.

I always found adult attempts to go into much detail about sexual stuff off-putting, even as a teen. By all means give the technical info and make sure kids don't fall prey to dangerous myths. But human beings have generally managed to find out how to have sex and enjoy it without their various guardians giving them all the details.

I remember that thing on Twitter Datun . Was v funny, “unpleasantly audible..”

Which is a truth universally acknowledged in most circles

Unless you are Warwickshire county council and want to teach high school kids about painful dangerous and degrading acts most of us will probably have to google to know wtf they are on about
Thay made it through several " layers" of people til parents got wind...

Yes. Anything further than that is TMI for a child.

Which is a truth universally acknowledged in most circles.

I have always found a perfectly good answer to that is "because they think it's nice." At which point the kids say "gross" and you leave it at that.

However, nobody had thought to tell these young people that sex was pleasurable or that it could be making love, not necessarily sex

Who says that about children?

Have you noticed that, the way the term "young people" is used when the word "child" is meant? Juno is talking about 10 and 11 year olds here, kids, not young people.

The whole story?
Why isn't maths thought in this way? Why isn't French or Spanish thought in this way? Any lesson starts at one point and gradually moves on when the child is capable of understanding.

Why didn't the article mention that?Isn't this important?

Indeed it is.

Dawson says

What they always asked, in different ways, was ‘Why do people have sex if they don’t want a baby?’ That unearthed a really fundamental issue with the way that we teach SRE (Sex and Relationships Education). We’re not really giving them the whole story.”

They seem to be under the impression that whatever questions children ask, requires an in-depth answer.

"I'll tell you about that when you're a bit older and can understand it" appears to be an alien concept to Dawson.

My son asked me what a prostitute was when he was about seven...

Datun

I don't know about safe guarding, what i know is what i have learnt from women on this board.
Telling 10 & 11 year olds that sex can be pleasurable is wrong.
It is not legal under 16.
10 & 11 year olds can not consent.
For 10 & 11 year olds it would not be pleasurable.
Why didn't the article mention that?Isn't this important?

There have been problems in the past when MN members are aware of Safeguarding & discuss NSPCC

Although I just provided a link to an NSPCC information page in order to avoid using what appears to be a banned word here.

Who thinks that 10 or 11 years olds are making love or could understand what making love means?

Peter Tatchell. Although it was 9 year olds.

Dances, they do indeed.

“By 10 and 11 years old, most children knew that you needed an egg and a sperm to naturally conceive a baby. However, nobody had thought to tell these young people that sex was pleasurable or that it could be making love, not necessarily sex."

Sex for a 10 or 11 year old girl would not be pleasurable.
Who thinks that 10 or 11 years olds are making love or could understand what making love means?

I just looked through the thread to see if any more of my posts have been deleted, and the one with the link to the NSPCC website has gone. Seems an odd thing for anyone to object to.

There have been problems in the past when MN members are aware of Safeguarding & discuss NSPCC:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3725552-NSPCC-Again

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3611569-Is-NSPCC-school-guidance-for-kids-re-sexual-abuse-shifting-the-Overton-Window-Need-expert-advise-to-break-this-down

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3611447-Potential-Systemic-Safeguarding-failures-in-NSPCC-Childline-illustrated-by-appointment-ending-of-relationship-with-Munroe-Bergdorf-Thread-2

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3605120-Munroe-Childline-s-first-LGBT-campaigner

Peter Wainlass CEO NSPCC
"When appointing an ambassador we are required to consider whether the relationship supports our ability to safeguard children and be influential in safeguarding children. The board decided an ongoing relationship with Munroe was inappropriate because of her statements on the public record, which we felt would mean that she was in breach of our own risk assessments and undermine what we are here to do. These statements are specific to safeguarding and equality."
www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/news-opinion/munroe-bergdorf

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3353658-AIBU-to-be-shocked-that-the-NSPCC-cancelled-their-Facebook-Live-session-with-Mumsnetters-because-they-didnt-like-the-questions-That-they-cant-explain-why-they-arent-putting-children-in-danger

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3612619-Barrister-Sarah-Phillimore-and-the-NSPCC

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/03/nspcc-mumsnet-row-defending-girl-guides-transgender-policy/

I think it was for clarifying something for someone else that another poster said.

That's what I was doing with my NSPCC post.

Mumsnet should be ashamed of themselves.

Not entirely sure what I was deleted for. Although I think it was for clarifying something for someone else that another poster said.

Horses require attention

A certain someone is obviously having fun, targeting members that they feel threatened by.

If I say anything I’ll be deleted

That does seem very likely. What did Datun say to get deleted? (Obviously nobody can tell me or they'd get deleted as well)

I just looked through the thread to see if any more of my posts have been deleted, and the one with the link to the NSPCC website has gone. Seems an odd thing for anyone to object to.

If I say anything I’ll be deleted

“By 10 and 11 years old, most children knew that you needed an egg and a sperm to naturally conceive a baby.

An egg (female gamete) and a sperm (male gamete) is needed to conceive any child regardless of method of conception.

All teachers should know this.

Current thread discussing Mimmymum's latest targetting of MN advertisers, this time 'Audible' based on Juno Dawson's complaint

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3907235-TRAs-targeting-mumsnet-advertisers

Recent similar failed attempt with Arla Dairies:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3882314-To-think-this-doctor-really-really-hates-mumsnet

However, nobody had thought to tell these young people that sex was pleasurable or that it could be making love, not necessarily sex

Where on earth do these people get their information from?

I wonder if talking to shy, nervous or cheeky young teens has skewed their thinking.
It is quite likely they affirmed everything the teacher said out of embarrassed duty.