"Ace week" in girl guiding.

You didn’t fill in the blank though. How are you supposed to help a child differentiate between not liking anyone as a child, which is normal, and ending up asexual as an adult? How do you do that in an age appropriate way?

You can't.

Not liking someone, not getting married to someone, not dating someone is a completely different premise to not wanting to have sex with someone.

And everyone knows it.

I came across these cartoons from a person who is actively hating GC women. I am just going to put a screen shot here.

“I don’t like anyone now. Am I asexual?”

“When you’re older you won’t like anyone.”

“But I don’t like anyone now. Isn’t that the same?”

“No, it’s different because ”

How? Can you fill in the blank? If you’re happt to have this issue discussed with children, you need to explain how you’re going to make sure they can understand the difference between what they feel now being normal, and what might turn into asexuality, with its complex nature of sex without attraction that you’ve described.

Can that blank be filled appropriately?

Shame she wasn’t a ‘good effect’ on him...

From what I remember the ex head of girl guides Julie Bentley was friends with Simon Bentley the deputy chair of Stonewall. They both met when they worked at Brook, the sexual advisory clinic for young people.

You seem to misunderstand between teenagers exploring their sexuality in a normal way and adults overstepping boundaries.

There is so much of this going around at the moment.

And there seems to be adults who simply cannot recognise sexualised behaviour if a shoe was flung from the foot of a boy pouting and strutting around and hit them in the head. It is a grave worry.

It's seriously not their job.

They talk about wanting to be open to girls from all sorts of backgrounds - do they really think that parents from widely different backgrounds will all have the same views?

It was also on the fb pages not just ‘one tweet’ as so many seem keen to diminish it too.

@2fallsfromSSA letter is exactly right.

I said similar to this on the AIBU thread and got told to fuck off! Although it seemed there were some poster on there who weren't exactly acting in good faith.

There was an AIBU thread a while ago about a guy who was uncomfortable because his company had some sort of day where they all wre supposed to talk about their sexual identity, and one gay employee was asked to do a write up in the company newsletter where he talked about how happy he was to bring his whole self to work.

I thought it was notable how many people in the discussion didn't seem to understand the difference between someone casually mentioning a partner, or bringing them to a work event that includes partners, and this idea that everyone needs to know everyone's sexuality so they can bring their whole self to work.

A few posters said something which I think is really important to understanding how people are thinking about all this: to the effect that sexuality was a fundamental element of identity so to be validated as a human being in the most basic way meant that we all have to be open with each other about our sexuality.

If that is the mindset, then a person who doesn't have a strong attachment to a category of gay or straight might feel some necessity to have some other identity category to replace them. It's all quite different than the older view in the earlier days of many gay rights movements that proposed that sexuality was just one aspect of a person's life, rather than an identity. I suspect lobby groups adopted the identity approach because it's better for their bottom line. But it lends itself to multiplying into a plethora of different sexual identities.

I don't take that view and I think that as a leader in a children's organisation, sometimes it may even be appropriate to be more private than you would be in a workplace, depending on the kids you are working with. You aren't there to bring your whole self, you are there to help the kids.

Well there's a current leader and a former leader on this thread who disagree with GGs stance.

As was patiently explained to you on the other thread, the focus on prepubescent children is because guides includes that age range. Guiding catering for such a wide age range means they need to be more thorough with making sure only age appropriate content filters in.

People also expect those who work with children, whether paid or voluntary to understand basic safeguarding.

Can't kids just have a space that is free from discussion of sex, gender, sexuality...There is SO MUCH of this stuff aimed at them at the moment and it encourages/forces kids to start forming views at a time when they may not be ready to do so.

I think there is a place for proper sensitive discussions around all things sexuality and sexual health/safety in schools - from a perspective that kids need to understand their own bodies and need to be safe and secure. But I don't think Girlguiding should be taking that role. It would be like my running club having an asexuality week. The focus is on learning skills with peers and having fun, it is not the place for it.

Yeah, guide leaders should not be talking to 13-year-olds about their sexuality, or lack of it, either.

Guide leaders should not be talking to children about their sexuality, at all. They are not trained in any kind of PSHE. It's a completely inappropriate.

Thay aren't though.

Guide leaders should not be talking to children about their sexuality, at all. They are not trained in any kind of PSHE. It's a completely inappropriate.

Of course, there will be some people who are delighted that children are being subjected to talks about sexuality. But there will be a whole bunch of other people who are just uninformed, and think it's 'cool'.

Every single guide leader on the other thread said that nobody is talking to the children about asexuality. It's a tweet on a 13+ platform.

But prepubertal children not liking anyone is a normal stage of development. It’s not a sign of anything, particularly not a made up sexuality like asexuality. So if you tell children that not liking anyone is their sexuality, you are sexualising normal behaviour. This is not appropriate.

Made up? Asexuality was first mentioned in the 1890s.

And if a young child says to you “I don’t like anyone, does that mean I’m asexual?” how are you answering that question appropriately?

Exactly the same "when you’re older you’ll like boys/men, girls/women, both or neither. Each of those is fine."

Also, why is everyone focused on prepubertal children?

So if you tell children that not liking anyone is their sexuality, you are sexualising normal behaviour. This is not appropriate.

This. It's really not complicated.

This policy of the girl guides is getting splashed (negatively) everywhere now, including MSM.

Those who are still trying to defend it might want to reflect on why they are out of step with almost everyone else who thinks it's wildly inappropriate.

Of course, there will be some people who are delighted that children are being subjected to talks about sexuality. But there will be a whole bunch of other people who are just uninformed, and think it's 'cool'.

It's not. You're not.

Slashlover you failed to explain this on the thread in AIBU.

You say asexuality is just another sexuality like gay, straight or bisexual. Apparently kids can be told “some people like boys, some people like girls, some people like both, and some people like neither. All of these options are fine.”

But prepubertal children not liking anyone is a normal stage of development. It’s not a sign of anything, particularly not a made up sexuality like asexuality. So if you tell children that not liking anyone is their sexuality, you are sexualising normal behaviour. This is not appropriate.

And if a young child says to you “I don’t like anyone, does that mean I’m asexual?” how are you answering that question appropriately?

It’s easy with gay, straight or bisexual. You can say to a child “when you’re older you’ll like boys/men, girls/women or both.” But with your muddled definition of asexuality how can you explain that to a child?

“I don’t like anyone now, am I asexual?”

“When you’re older, you won’t like anyone.”

“But I don’t like anyone now. Isn’t that the same?”

“No, it’s different because _”

How? How are you filling in that blank in an age appropriate way? How are explaining the muddle that is being asexual but still enjoying sex and still having partners?

A child who had a baby would definitely be investigated for sexual abuse.

You seem to misunderstand between teenagers exploring their sexuality in a normal way and adults overstepping boundaries.

A couple of girl guides discussing crushes, feelings boys and girls before lights out together. Normal.

A leader joining in that conversation. Red flag.

The people who work with children should be able to tell the difference between adults and children.

By the way, I was asked in my girlguiding leader vetting what I'd do if asked about my boyfriend.

In the early noughties the official answer was it doesn't really need to be discussed. If a child asks, tell them it's not appropriate and move on.
I certainly would have failed the vetting process then by rambling on about being a demi aromatic.
And even then the safeguarding was less robust than in education.

Adults should leave their sex life at home when working with children. Quite frankly it gives children the ick.
This probably all stems from guide leaders trying to be cool.
Adults with responsibility are not supposed to be cool. You don't tell children how you used to shoplift Pokémon cards, go out and get drunk or sleep with lots of people.
Save that stuff for adult friends.

There is absolutely no need to be discussing this with 14 year old and younger past a 'it is normal to also not know as a person your age'.

This is adults putting their needs ahead of a child's.

When I was 14, people were definitely dating and one girl had a baby at 15, would you have told them that their sexuality might change?

‘ACE’ is such a cutsy term that feels like it has childish appeal. Which is really gross once anyone looks into the definitions for 2 mins.

Oh good god! My daughter started Rainbows this week! She loved it.

Obviously no problems for now (cannot imagine the leaders of my daughter’s group having any truck with bringing adult sexuality to a group of five year olds) but will be keeping an eye on developments in the wider guiding community.