"Ace week" in girl guiding.

But in primary school, many children go through puberty in Year 5 and 6.

So children in Years 5 and 6 can be experiencing non trauma related sexual feelings that may also lead to inappropriate sexual behaviour.

Whatever the reason, I would expect any teacher to flag up sexual behaviour in a child of that age. However not all of it will be trauma related and some of it will be down to a lack of understanding of how to process and deal with sexual feelings. Hence the need for education.

Children mature at very different ages. Some children become sexually curious at primary school, and some children engage in sexual behaviours at primary school.

I'm not saying that it's ok for children to be having sex at primary school. I'm saying it's not ok to pretend to children that sex doesn't exist and not to educate them about it until an arbitrary age when adults decide they are old enough to handle it. This is because if a child is having sexual feelings when they are in primary school, if they've not received any education about it, what are they going to do with those feelings? How might those feelings be expressed? Who might they end up hurting when they try and express those feelings? Sex education is important for this reason.

Yes early sexual behaviour can be as a result of trauma or abuse. But it can also be perfectly natural and normal depending on when a child goes through puberty.

Whatever the reason for sexual feelings or behaviours in younger children, pretending they don't exist and suggesting that younger children shouldn't be educated about sex, is harmful.

I thought it was well-established that sexual behaviour in a child below the age of puberty, as almost all primary aged children will be, was a strong indicator of abuse and should lead to a safeguarding referral.

This is a lot more amateur. Amateurs, even very well meaning, can cause real harm.

Sexual activity in primary school is far more common than you might think. I don't like it either, but it's true. Pretending it's not, and refusing to educate children about sex until we as a society feel it's appropriate to do so, risks putting children at harm.

Children having sex at primary school age are being sexually abused. This is not a 'they're gonna do it anyway so they might as well be fully educated' scenario you are talking about there, it sexual abuse.

We are not 'risking putting children at harm', they are already at harm if they are having sex at primary school age.

Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you?

the average age of puberty is getting younger and younger in Western society which means sexual feelings are kicking in younger and younger.

No. We had a very informative thread about this earlier in the year. This was a misconception based on the fact that during the Industrial Revolution the age of puberty rose because of widespread malnutrition and overcrowded living conditions causing illness and slowing down growth. Historical evidence now suggests that before the onset of the IR the age at which puberty began was much what it is now.

I can't see the problem for teenagers to decide they are asexual. It's not as if they can't change their minds, and I can think of few things more helpful for safeguarding than for a teenage girl to have a handy and socially acceptable label to append to explain disinterest in sexual involvement before she's ready. I do think kids should also be told that we all change and grow and morph through our lives, and a label that fits at one stage may not at others, though - I think that should be taught as a huge part of SRE generally, in fact.

As to premature sexualisation... it's a red flag. If between same ages kids, it's apparently often because some kids have been groomed and abused by adults, and then translate that to peers. It's not normal/the average for primary aged kids to be having sex, and in almost all cases it would translate to a safeguarding failure of some sort. The average age across the population for first intercourse is around 18. Those having sex in their primary years will be pretty serious outliers, and in many cases, victims of CSA.

How can you acknowledge that sexual assults happen In schools yet then get outraged at the notion that trauma could be a reason behind some cases of a lack.of connection and sexual desire?

We have already explained how it's being physically inflicted on some children through drugs.

So that in itself shows its not necessarily outright the sexuality in all cases .

Ill informed adults can do more harm than good, whatever their intentions.
The fact that adults think they are qualified to take on this role is a red flag and a safeguarding issue imo.

It's also important to point out that there is a wide age range in youth activities that there isn't in schools. A lesson aimed at a single year group won't be suitable for a guide group, or a cub pack, or any similar children's activity.

A 14 year old telling a 10 year old about sex and relationships is as inappropriate as an 18 year old telling a 13 year old - and those are the age ranges we are talking about here.

I won't comment on again on unqualified adults who discuss this with 10 year olds as it would probably get me deleted .

We are back to blurring the lines. Should unqualified adults be talking about sex to children at all? Is there an issue if a child is thought to be unusually or inappropriately knowledgeable about sex?

Guides used to support PHSE in schools; what changed to make them think they are qualified to tackle the subject?

www.girlguiding.org.uk/what-we-do/our-stories-and-news/blogs/lets-end-sexual-harassment-in-schools/

Replace asexual with homosexual in what you've written above and you'll see how bigoted this sounds.

Asexuality is an orientation. It is not the result of trauma or abuse.

Unfortunately a lot of safeguarding is necessarily offensive to someone.

Again, I repeat. This thread is about children under 14 years of age. I don't give a shiny shite how adults feel about their sexuality, and I don't care how offended they may be if I point out that some discussion is unsuitable for children.

I've no issue with youngsters learning about various leanings but what would annoy me is it being done at guides. Lessons on sexual orientation would not be something I'd expect them to learn about.

Do they get a badge for sexual orientation awareness?

I have spent my adult life forcing myself to have relationships with people because I thought that was what people did. I had no idea asexuality was an orientation. I had never been taught in any part of my own sexual health lessons at school that it was possible and indeed absolutely fine not to feel any sexual attraction at all. In a world where everyone talks about sex all the time, it's actually really hard and confusing to be someone who doesn't ever think about it, and doesn't know why they don't think about it

And I did the same. In fact fir years I thought there was something wring witg me cos I didn't get it. Didn't feel attracted to anyone really..certainly didnt see what the fuss about sex was.

What I needed was not to assume I was a sexual and give up on relationships and sex completely. I needed to realise that actually I wasn't the problem, that it was OK to say no, that actually some men can just be selfish lovers and make very little effort to ensure their partners enjoy it

We can of course completely normalise not being in.a relationship and basing our self worth on who we are with.

But how do we also ensure that young people who very naturally probably will just be sick of everyone they have spent 6 hours a day with fir the past 5 years don't prematurely label themselves asexual and miss out on future fulfilling relationships?

"vinsurvin
@MrsOvertonsWindow I'm sorry to break it to you, but children do have sexual relationships....It's an unfortunate truth that children are having sex ... while still at primary school. ... Pretending this isn't happening isn't going to help matters."

Um, what?

What I am saying - is that just as children are told 'some men go out with and marry men' and 'some women go out with and marry women', they can also be told 'and some people don't like to go out with or marry anyone at all, and that's also normal and fine'.

It doesn't need to be spoken about in terms of children's own sexuality. Simply in an educative context of exploring what sexuality means, what types of sexuality there are, etc. From looking at the Girlguiding material, this is all they are suggesting. Hence my not understanding the intensely negative reaction on here.

I agree with @vinsurin that a lot of the posts on this thread are very offensive. Replace asexual with gay,or sexually attracted to a different race, and posts suggesting being asexual stops you from being physically healthy or is only because you were traumatised as a child read disgustingly.

I usually agree with lots of the threads on this board and would agree with this one if it was aimed at rainbows or brownies - but guides are for girls aged 10-14, many of whom will be sexually active (if not having full sex) and experiencing sexual or romantic feelings. In which case I don't think it's inappropriate for them to learn about asexuality in the same way it wouldn't be appropriate for them to learn about being gay, bisexuality or lesbian. Of course it is bizarre for a 6 year old to label themselves as asexual but I think it might actually be useful for a 13 or 14 year old who is wondering why she isn't experiencing the same crushes and feelings as her friends and wondering if there is something wrong with her (although according to posters on this board there is!)

As a pp pointed out, we live in an overwhelmingly sexualised world, which can be particularly intimidating for girls. If they are not sure about who they like, saying they think they are asexual for a few years gives them an 'out' from otherwise constant discussion of which you fancy, what you've done with them etc I remember from my own teen years while they figure it out- does it matter? It might actually be a good thing for girls who feel a bit overwhelmed with it all. Unlike being trans nobody is prescribing blockers or surgery to kids who say they are asexual, so what harm is it causing?

[quote vinsurvin]@MrsOvertonsWindow I'm sorry to break it to you, but children do have sexual relationships. Children are increasingly being sexualised from a very young age. Children have 'boyfriends' and 'girlfriends' at primary school. It's an unfortunate truth that children are having sex or experimenting with sexual touching while still at primary school. You might not like it, but it is the reality and will continue to be so - the average age of puberty is getting younger and younger in Western society which means sexual feelings are kicking in younger and younger.

Pretending this isn't happening isn't going to help matters. It is what it is and we have to provide safe frameworks to educate and keep children safe as they learn to navigate their sexual feelings. As such, we have to prepare children and explain to them -in age appropriate terms - what sex is, who has sex and with whom, and what it's ok for them to do and what it's not ok to do, from a fairly young age. Introducing them to the idea that not everyone has sex with someone of the opposite sex is not harmful or damaging in any way. The pearl clutching on here is ridiculous. Girlguiding are not suggesting that they are going to be holding sessions where girls are going to be forced to declare themselves as any particular sexuality. They're simply raising awareness that asexuality exists. I don't see why that would be a problem. Why do you find asexuality as an orientation so threatening? I'm confused.[/quote]
Fucking hell.

I suppose that explains it.

What kind of discrimination would someone who is 'ace' receive in the workplace, anyone know?

Guide Leaders are volunteers. They have safeguarding training but are not professionals.
I genuinely think as an organisation it means well and values inclusion.
However I don't know how Leaders are expected to know the difference between a child speaking with them about something private, such as talking about their sexuality, which is not considered to be something that requires disclosure. Or talking about their sexuality which may be being informed or shaped by abuse, which is.
They have been advised that a child declaring themselves NB or presumably Ace (even where their parents do not know) is not a safeguarding issue and requires no response, recording or disclosure.
I think this puts Leaders in a very difficult position and some of these children will be at risk of harm.

Why are you so upset about the idea of children being taught about asexuality as a sexual orientation?

Do you object to your child being taught about homosexuality in school?

My kids know that some men go out with and marry men, and some women go out with and marry women. There is no sexual element to it, past what kids of their age know about people living together, having babies etc.

I'm not going to say to my daughter, 'oh you don't want to get married, maybe you're asexual'. She wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about, I would be putting ideas onto her that she is not equipped to understand. Why would I be needing to talk about sexual attraction to her when she is 10?