to be about to explode at that MP with the ridiculous views on sex ed.

[hockeyforjockeys]

She's been given a slot on the one show for goodness sake! In the first line she has slipped in the myth of seven year olds being taught to put condoms on bananas. As someone who runs the sex ed programme at our school I have to spend a lot of time dealing with parents who believe this crap, and it drives me mad. And then she's onto to the rubbish about girls having to be the ones who are responsible for saying no. Aargh!!!!

Oh dear.

Her bill was passed as well at its first reading (or something I don't know the lingo) so I guess it has real chance of becoming law?

Putting all the responsibility for sex and it's consequences onto young girls, boys obviously needn't trouble themselves about any of it.

FFS and for crying out loud.

I just don't understand why she would even want to do that. What's wrong with boys and girls both getting good sex and relationships education? What on earth is wrong with that?

What did they say on the show when she started on about how the girls have to be the ones with the responsibility?

You aren't allowed to teach about relationships per se in sex ed - you might pass on your own views/prejudices/preferences.

What makes me so angry is the complete misinformation she spouts. I'm all for encouraging all teenagers to have time to think about the responsibility of sex, and have the confidence to say no if it isn't right for them. However her ridiculous bill isn't going to do that. Does she really believe that an hour (because that is all that is proposed) is going to help in changing the factors that cause teenagers to become pregnant (e.g. poverty, lack of ambition, gender conformity etc. etc.)?

troisgarcons that isn't true. In fact that is the aspect that parents are allowed to withdraw their child from, the biological facts come under the Science curriculum so technically all children in state schools must be taught that. However it is sex and relationships education, so you do cover relationships. What you are not allowed to do (in lots of schools anyway, it is down to individual school policy) is favour one type of relationship over another (e.g. hetrosexual over homosexual).

SardineQueen It's the one show so no hard questioning! However her argument was that girls are the ones left holding the bab. Err why are you not promoting a bill that encourages responsibility of fathers then?

I disagree. By your reckoning you might favour a relationshhip over a one night stand. See enough of that on here to 'know' it appears to be quite normal for some people. Sexual choice. Therefore you cannot appear to be condoning (or indeed condemning) relationships.

I thought that these days children were taught about sex as a part of a loving relationship and not doing it til you're ready etc

I don't have a child that age yet but I was sure that it wasn't just the biology taught any more?

I don't quite get your argument. Just because you don't teach that one night stands are wrong, that doesn't mean you don't teach about relationships. I'm in primary and part of programme is to learn about different types of relationships (mostly non-sexual e.g. friends, parents etc.), certainly not touching on one night stands. One thing you can do is facilitate a discussion on casual relationships (at secondary!) to give children a chance to explore teh issues that may arise if you make that choice

here

No-one is making it up! It's even called sex and relationships education!

What is sex education?
Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) in schools is a graduated, age appropriate programme which teaches children and young adults about sex, sexuality, emotions, relationships and sexual health. It is based around the three main elements of attitudes and values, personal and social skills, and knowledge and understanding. It aims to be age appropriate, and topics covered may include:

the importance of marriage and stable relationships
how to avoid teenage pregnancy
how to recognise and avoid abuse and exploitation
skills to avoid being pressured into unwanted or unprotected sex
the benefits of delaying sexual activity and avoiding risky behaviour
the importance of safer sex
While SRE includes the teaching of sex, sexuality and sexual health, it does not promote sexual activity, or any particular sexual orientation.

Parents have the right to withdraw their child from their school's SRE programme, except where the lessons form a part of the National Curriculum.

'love' and the concept thereof is taught in RS lessons.

The nitty gritty mechanics are taught in science lessons.

Don't ask me what PHSE is for - as far as I discern its for videos or doing your homework so the teacher can crack on with marking.

Am a bit confused.

On a discussion about whether the focus in schools when it comes to sex education should be just teaching girls to say no (!), we instead have to debate whether the SRE program even exists?

YANBU I can't believe how much CRAP conservative policy the liberals are supporting without a even a smidgeon of thought.

SRE
Diasbilities
Benefits
the list goes on and on and on.

Why shouldn't boys have the same SRE education?...I have yet to see a reasonable answer to that question.

Oh dear what's glaringly missing from this?

"how to recognise and avoid abuse and exploitation
skills to avoid being pressured into unwanted or unprotected sex"

How about how to recognise and avoid perpetrating abuse and exploitation and
skills to avoid pressuring someone into unwanted or unprotected sex

I think that her argument was not that Girls should take all the responsibility but that girls are the ones who will bear the responsibility if it all goes wrong, they are the ones who will bring up a child single handedly, not finish their education and enter the benefit system - girls should be more aware of this.
I agree boys should too but at the end of the day who has more to lose?

The policy is that girls, and only girls, should be taught abstinence.

The whole concept is wrapped up in a set of ideas that are extraordinarily backwards, with girls having to be the "gatekeepers" of sex, and take responsibility for it happening or not, while the boys are what? Expected to try and get around the gatekeepers and persuade them to "give it up" and the consequences are nothing to do with them.

Those are not healthy messages to teach our young people.

Don't forget that this woman also said that teaching girls to say no would reduce child sex abuse. FFS.

YANBU. Luckily, I was bathing DS when The One Show was on, or I'd probably have exploded with rage too. Have heard enough of her witterings in other places though to get really .

Just can't believe that the government are seriously contemplating taking such a retrograde step as to try to essentially 'educate' the next generation that "nice girls don't." Mind you, as another poster has pointed out, given their policies on a whole range of issues I really shouldn't be surprised......