100 organisations ask Labour to abandon Tory revised guidelines on RSHE

"We teach children about potential sexual abuse very young- e.g. pants rule. I mean that level of teaching. So that for the children who do see porn they know what to do
I've said this a lot, yet there is a continuous push to suggest I'm saying show kids porn, or describe it in detail. I'm not. I'm saying don't blanket ban discussion of it, which is the proposed change under consultation."

Let's break that down.

""We teach children about potential sexual abuse very young- e.g. pants rule. I mean that level of teaching."

The pants rule does not teach children about child sexual abuse. It teaches them things such as "privates are private" and who might need to see them, when and why. It also teaches them that they can talk to an adult they trust about " bad secrets" that they find upsetting.

It is age, and child development, appropriate.

www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

So from there, we have:

"I mean that level of teaching. So that for the children who do see porn they know what to do"

But we cannot get to "that level of teaching" or beyond the quote above from @CassieMaddox without much clearer posts. I know we won't get them but there we have it. We can't get to any detail at all.

For clarity, teachers must take care discussing pornography. Exposing children to information they're not ready for, or able to consent to, could land teachers in a whole load of hot water. See below and in bold in particular:

"Sexual abuse - Involves forcing or enticing a child or young person to take part in sexual activities, not necessarily involving a high level of violence, whether or not the child is aware of what is happening. The activities may involve physical contact, including assault by penetration (for example, rape or oral sex) or non-penetrative acts, such as masturbation, kissing, rubbing, and touching outside of clothing. They may also include non-contact activities, such as involving children in looking at, or in the production of, sexual images, watching sexual activities, encouraging children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways, or grooming a child in preparation for abuse. Sexual abuse can take place online, and technology can be used to facilitate offline abuse. Sexual abuse is not solely perpetrated by adult males. Women can also commit acts of sexual abuse, as can other children."

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65cb4349a7ded0000c79e4e1/Workingtogethertosafeguardchildren2023-statutoryguidance.pdf#page154

This is what posters are saying when they talk about the whole system that wraps around children.

And YET AGAIN, there is NO BLANKET BAN PROPOSED.

"We teach children about potential sexual abuse very young- e.g. pants rule. I mean that level of teaching. So that for the children who do see porn they know what to do
I've said this a lot, yet there is a continuous push to suggest I'm saying show kids porn, or describe it in detail. I'm not. I'm saying don't blanket ban discussion of it, which is the proposed change under consultation."

Let's break that down.

""We teach children about potential sexual abuse very young- e.g. pants rule. I mean that level of teaching."

The pants rule does not teach children about child sexual abuse. It teaches them things such as "privates are private" and who might need to see them, when and why. It also teaches them that they can talk to an adult they trust about " bad secrets" that they find upsetting.

It is age, and child development, appropriate.

www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

So from there, we have:

"I mean that level of teaching. So that for the children who do see porn they know what to do"

But we cannot get to "that level of teaching" or beyond the quote above from @CassieMaddox without much clearer posts. I know we won't get them but there we have it. We can't get to any detail at all.

For clarity, teachers must take care discussing pornography. Exposing children to information they're not ready for, or able to consent to, could land teachers in a whole load of hot water. See below and in bold in particular:

"Sexual abuse - Involves forcing or enticing a child or young person to take part in sexual activities, not necessarily involving a high level of violence, whether or not the child is aware of what is happening. The activities may involve physical contact, including assault by penetration (for example, rape or oral sex) or non-penetrative acts, such as masturbation, kissing, rubbing, and touching outside of clothing. They may also include non-contact activities, such as involving children in looking at, or in the production of, sexual images, watching sexual activities, encouraging children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways, or grooming a child in preparation for abuse. Sexual abuse can take place online, and technology can be used to facilitate offline abuse. Sexual abuse is not solely perpetrated by adult males. Women can also commit acts of sexual abuse, as can other children."

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65cb4349a7ded0000c79e4e1/Workingtogethertosafeguardchildren2023-statutoryguidance.pdf#page154

This is what posters are saying when they talk about the whole system that wraps around children.

And YET AGAIN, there is NO BLANKET BAN PROPOSED.

@CassieMaddox if you’re arguing for this sort of thing - the ‘you might see some things on phones or online that you find scary or that make you feel upset, you should talk to an adult about that’ kind of chat - then I don’t think anyone really disagrees with that. Previous posters (like @EasternStandard’s quote above) have already said about this.

I’m not sure that the new guidance bans doing that.

It’s worth going back to this as some posters have suggested schools do something that already happens and won’t end with the guidance.

but I imagine you would teach them they might see adult stuff on the Internet that they find disgusting, scary or upsetting. This is how you report it. This is who you can talk to about it. This is what to do if you see it in school.

Internet safety happens in primary and is covered for parents and children. I’m not sure what posters want outside this.

Okay thank you for trying to explain again @CassieMaddox. However I and several others have asked why you think exposing all children to information about a topic is an answer to the fact some children are exposed to it at a very young age.

So this bit:

‘So for example, banning teaching about porn until year 7 is too late. We know a lot of primary children are exposed to porn (10-25%); those children are most at risk. They need teaching the language and pathways to explain what they have seen in an age appropriate way. I think if there is a blanket ban on teaching about it, the easiest way for schools to comply is to avoid the topic and that's harmful for children.’

Why do you think it’s important/necessary to give information about porn to the 75 - 90% of 10 year olds (or younger) who know nothing about it?

And others have asked you what you envisage would be the way to do that in a way that is age appropriate. When you say they need ‘language and pathways ’ what do you mean? I’m genuinely struggling to understand why you think the majority of children need language to describe porn pre secondary school.

If primary school age children have been exposed to porn that seems like a failure of the adults who are meant to keep them safe from such content. Yes those children may well need support and to be able to speak about what they saw. That sounds like a job for counsellors or other specialists to me. Not something that a) should be dealt with in a whole class setting or b) that other children should then have to hear about.

Case in point.

Anyone who disagrees must be bad faith/a man/a trans activist.

It means I can't be arsed to explain again in the face of pass agg snark

I think disregarding the valuable time parents, teachers, school governors and others have given up to respond to the existing consultation suggests disturbing authoritarianism. It suggests that if the government doesn't like the response, they'll disregard it. Why would anyone bother next time? What guarantee would there be that someone would read your response and not just totally disregard it and start again?

Even if the guidance is substantially changed, to throw away all the time and effort respondants have put in is disrespectful and will mean that it will take much longer to reach a point that teachers have guidance. This is not acceptable, it is not in children's best interests.

The guidance is draft and the consultation is about that. It can be changed. To suppress the responses is anti-democratic and not in the interests of children, schools or teachers.

I think disregarding the valuable time parents, teachers, school governors and others have given up to respond to the existing consultation suggests disturbing authoritarianism. It suggests that if the government doesn't like the response, they'll disregard it. Why would anyone bother next time? What guarantee would there be that someone would read your response and not just totally disregard it and start again?

Even if the guidance is substantially changed, to throw away all the time and effort respondants have put in is disrespectful and will mean that it will take much longer to reach a point that teachers have guidance. This is not acceptable, it is not in children's best interests.

The guidance is draft and the consultation is about that. It can be changed. To suppress the responses is anti-democratic and not in the interests of children, schools or teachers.

They already do this from a young age. But this is not "teaching about pornography", or being in any way limited by the new guidance.

I'm talking about age appropriate explanation of what children should do if they see porn. We manage to discuss the "pants rule" with very young children for example. I'm talking about that kind of thing.

I don't think its controversial. Banning schools teaching about porn altogether potentially leaves 25% of children distressed, upset and out of options if they see something upsetting. Especially if they come from a family where discussions about sex and bodies are seen as embarrassing or taboo.

I think disregarding the valuable time parents, teachers, school governors and others have given up to respond to the existing consultation suggests disturbing authoritarianism. It suggests that if the government doesn't like the response, they'll disregard it. Why would anyone bother next time? What guarantee would there be that someone would read your response and not just totally disregard it and start again?

Even if the guidance is substantially changed, to throw away all the time and effort respondants have put in is disrespectful and will mean that it will take much longer to reach a point that teachers have guidance. This is not acceptable, it is not in children's best interests.

The guidance is draft and the consultation is about that. It can be changed. To suppress the responses is anti-democratic and not in the interests of children, schools or teachers.

Care to explain what the face means?

You haven’t really explained why you disagree though. You keep saying things, then people ask why or what you mean, and then you ignore that and make a new point. I’d like to understand your point of view, but you just pivot when challenged so it’s very hard to understand what you’re trying to say.

You haven’t really explained why you disagree though. You keep saying things, then people ask why or what you mean, and then you ignore that and make a new point. I’d like to understand your point of view, but you just pivot when challenged so it’s very hard to understand what you’re trying to say.

🙄

Many posters here aren't "discussing the issues though". They are dictating the answer, on behalf of all parents, and shaming, insulting and attacking those of us that disagree.

That's a common feature of trans activists - they always discuss children by referring to adults. Their complete lack of understanding or care about children's wellbeing and rights is so clear.

The right approach with this very challenging situation is to ensure that people can speak openly and tease out the issues.
That women / parents can discuss issues without being told "Massive amount of pearl clutching going on, under the pretext of "the children".
That the nuanced issues around the ages that children can cope with different information can be discussed without organisations with no direct experience of teaching SRE in mainstream schools weighing in and insisting that they know better.
That the principle of working in partnership with parents that's embedded into our legislation since the 1989 Children Act is restored.
That the bad faith actors who spend their time promoting the view that parents are right wing, transphobic, homophobic bigots that children need protection from are educated about the dreadful outcomes for children alienated from their families.

None of the above will remove the presence or influence of the porn industry / fetish promoting organisations. But it will restore the balance in terms of influence, where the views of those who love, care for and know their children are elevated above the bullying ignorance of the online mob.

And @CassieMaddox FYI year 10 children are 14/15 years old so not legal age for sex. I thought you would be aware of this have teenage boys and all that.