AIBU to think that 11 year old primary school children do not need this level of sex education?

[ZhenXiang]

Friends DS came home with a leaflet that had been handed out at school (aimed at girls, but he took it because of the content). It contained:

-Advice telling the girls to get a mirror and examine their genital area plus -picture of said area
-Information about discharge and STI's
-Information about going further with your boyfriend and masturbation
-Advice about contraception
-Advice and information about homosexual relationships
-Pictures of people in fairly intimate positions
-Information telling children that if they tell a doctor or a teacher that they are having sex that they are not allowed to tell their parents

Given that the law is that children should not be having sex until 16 and that this is a primary school I was a bit shocked that this information was being handed out without the parents knowledge. I would expect that this sort of content would be dealt with in secondary school in year 8 or 9 (that was when we had it when I was at school).

What do you think?

i started to teach my kids this stuff as soon as they started asking so about 4 or 5. nothing overly graphic obviously but the basic ins and outs of how babies get here. its good for them to know.

I think the whole point here is that children's physical maturity (including hormones which create the desire to have sex) runs far ahead of their capacity to handle it emotionally. Giving them as much information as possible won't help them with this, nor will it encourage them to have sex if this wasn't in their minds already, nor will it cause harm of any kind. On the contrary. The issue is teaching them how to keep themselves safe (in every sense) in that (surprisingly long) period between wanting to have sex and being mature enough to handle it properly (I'd say many people actually never get to that point!)

I think the choice is sex education at 11 or terminations and babies at 12 or 13.

I know which shocks me more...

DS1 is 11 and as an added extra has AS so finds relationships hard. he ahs sex ed today and there's sod all in that list doesn;t know or that would bother me.

ps. they have bodies which can do things - some of them nice - but with which they need to be careful and responsible, both for their own well-being and that of others (which makes it sound strangely like driving a car - which, in a way, it is)

I was an early developer, i started periods just after my 10th birthday, i had been obviously delvoping before then. I was C cup by the time I started secondary ffs! I also started having sex at 12. We had pretty good Sex ed at our school and conraception was given out free. We could also get sanitary/contraceptive supplies from the office once we got to secondary. I felt quite confident that i didnt have to do anything, there was a lot of focus on No means No etc. But I wanted to. So I did. I didnt get pregnant and have never had an STI, there were lots of people having sex but the idea of doing it without a condom was seen as a bit scummy. Oh i dont know, for my own experience the info given out at OPs DS school seems appropriate.

basic ins and outs of how babies get here >

"but the basic ins and outs of how babies get here"

Sorry.. great choice of words

x-post. Great minds huh?

Maybe I can shed some light on the teenage sex thing in The Netherlands, or at least what my experience was when I grew up there. I don't think we were brought up to be particularly conservative and to not have sex before 16 as some posters suggest. We were taught the biology of it on a young age, but more importantly that you had to be ready (which is your own decision), it has to be consensual on both sides and to protect yourself against STD's and pregnancy.

Lots of my friends were put on the pill as a matter of course around 13 - 14 so usually before they were having sex so that when they were ready, getting pregnant was not an issue. And you didn't then have to get hold of condoms or the pill when you were ready. It gave the freedom of making your own decisions when you felt ready. And most of them still used condoms unless you were both virgins. We were quite well educated on the facts.

On the whole I would say that having sex wasn't a no-no, but getting pregnant definitely was.

Most of us started to have sex around 15 - 16, although I know of many girls that were 13 or nearly 18 (like myself, although I would have wanted it sooner but opportunity just didn't arise!).

What makes me a bit sad when reading all these posts is that sex is something enjoyable and not something to get so anxious about.

Children start having sex as young as 12 and 13 now, at least they did in the schools I knew of.

I knew someone who went to a Catholic girls senior school and quite a few of the girls had much older boyfriends, even as old as in their early 30's.

At 11 I don't think it is too early for them to start learning, it keeps curiosity to find out for themselves at bay if anything IYSWIM, because they know they will be told.

Well said asinine. I would much rather my DD had too much info than not enough.
when we lived in Thailand, a mum had started her DD on hormone treatment to delay puberty. She didn't think there was anything wrong with this and didn't think it was strange that it was only her DD she was having treated. Her DSs were able to mature at their own pace.

I too think the level of information sensible and appropriate for my 11-year-old. However, I suspect she would stop listening with cries of 'ick'. :)

Girls in particular should know about biology and puberty long before 11, many girls start earlier than that.

12/13/14 year old girls do not have "boyfriends" in their 30s, they have rapists.

Information is good. Ignorance is bad.

Anyone who gets to puberty without understanding all the implications has been neglected by society and/or parents.

Oh and as for "should not be having sex until 16" do we really want to take them aside on the evening before their birthday and say "look you know we said babies come from storks..."

"For those of you saying it's too young, why do you feel that way? "

For me it is about the way the information is given, not the information itself.

I think the facts can be given in a simple, non graphic way and built up more slowly rather than given graphically and in a way that bombards the child with far more information than they can handle.

I don't, for example, think 5-11 yr olds need to know graphic details of sexual positions, which I have read about - something called the
the primary school sex and relationships education pack? I read about it and it was claimed that it covered things like prostitution, for example. Now if that is true - big if - then I can't see any necessity for a 5 - 11 yr old to know about prostitution. Well, maybe by age 11 in the right way and as part of education about exploitation and the abuse of vulnerable people perhaps but certainly not 5, 6, 7, 8...

Maybe I'm wrong, naive, out of touch, I'm happy to examine my own attitudes. Maybe I'm freaked out that my kids are growing up and I want to bury my head in the sand, I'm willing to challenge myself.

I don't think that leaving children to find out about it all behind the bikesheds is a good idea. I don't think that leaving them uninformed and possibly getting into frightening situations or feeling bad or guilty or whathaveyou is a good idea.

I just think that people need to sit down and really think what are the aims of giving the information. What is the desired outcome. Is the information that is given, given at the right time and in the right way. Is there a better way to give the information in order to have the desired outcome.

I've said this before - we don't have the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe because we teach children too much, too soon. It's because it's too little, too late.

There is a huge difference between being 5 and 11. I don't think you van group them all together, 5 year olds aren't going to be asking about prositution, I don't think, they are only going to notice that boys and girls have different bits. Older children, certainly from the age of 8 or 9, often talk and snigger about sex in the playground, certainly they did when I was at school, and that was over 20 years ago. Like it or not, they pick up all sorts of information, some of it more accurate than others. Suggesting that giving them correct info in an appropriate way is going to take away their childhoods is nonsense.

"Suggesting that giving them correct info in an appropriate way is going to take away their childhoods is nonsense"

I don't believe I suggested that it will. (I assume you mean me cos I talked about the 5-11 resource and the example of prostitution. Although I did say that it may be appropriate by age 11. The stuff I have read about it suggests that it is being taught from 5. If that's wrong, then fair enough. You read a lot of crap on the internet )

The whole point of my post was the importance of giving them the correct information in an appropriate way.

I just think it's important to question whether or not that is currently happening.

I don't think that in anything you should ever think that you are doing it the best way it is ever possible to do it. You should always look for the problems, the flaws, should always reassess based on outcomes to date and determine whether the current plan is the right way to meet the need and if there is a better way of doing it.

There is a big difference between 5 and 11. And there is a big difference in the mateiral used to teach PHSE in KS1/2 as well. Just becaue it all comes in a pack that doesn't mean that year1 and year 6 are going to be using the same resources. Whatever the Daily Mail tells you.

They don;t teach them how to do algebra in year 1 - and they don't teach them about prostitition or STIs either!

I'm really glad to hear that. Many reports on this resource actually say that they are taught this stuff from 5. I am very glad to learn that that is bollocks.

It is quite worrying then, that so many reports claim that children as young as 5 are being taught explicit sexual positions, about prostitution etc etc, when this is not the case. It is not good that people are lied to. It would be better for them to say at 5 they learn x,y,z at 6 they learn x,y,z...

So it is untrue and scaremongering then? That is very irresponsible reporting, is it not and should be challenged if it is claiming things that are not true?

eg

independent

here

here

and the hysterical daily mail for funsies

If it's not true, then it should not be reported.