...to think that sex at 13 is NOT normal?

[WotchOotErAPolis]

Now that dear old Nanny State is considering distributing sex-ed material saying that sex at 13 is normal, AIBU to think that it's condoning illegal and unwise behaviour?

www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/education/schools-being-told-sex-at-13-is-normal

I just found this gem on the Family Education Trust.

'We have seen the weaponisation of homosexuality'

Family Education Trust website.

I would say, another issue is that many people's knowledge of human biology is poor, children should be taught how their body works, in general, anyway.

the truth is...

1. This traffic light toolkit is to help teachers identify whether children are being subject to child sexual exploitation. It is not a teaching aid.
2. Sex education in schools is helping to keep more of our child safe both from such exploitation and from teenage pregnancy.
3. Teenage pregnancy is now at the lowest level since records began.. This is thanks to the 10 year teenage pregnancy strategy put in place by the last labour government.

The problem is that if teachers/adults are not clear about whether or not children younger than 16 should be having sex,you end up with alot of confusion which can lead to situations like Rochdale.Here are 2 quotes from the report.

"The report states that victims were viewed as 'making their own choices' and 'engaging in consensual sexual activity' even though they were below the age of consent.
"No one can consent to sexual abuse, whatever their age, and children under 16 can never consent to sex. The adults involved must always be held fully responsible for what happens."

This situation would not have happened if there was not a prevailing view in society that teenagers will and do have sex and we just need to accept it. Those poor girls. Lets hope lessons have been learned.

What I would be interested in Mrsguy is whether with education,less teenagers are engaging in sexual activity or more are using contraception and/or taking the morning after pill. I realise that less pregnancies is a big step in the right direction but how it is being achieved would make the results of sex education clearer.

This is going to come over as a bit "lecturey" and repetitive of other posts, so 'soz'.

There is a natural evolutionary conundrum. Societies that have well nourished children see earlier puberty than those societies closer to starvation. It's a built in evolutionary population control.

The issue is that well nourished societies can also afford to support ethical and moral systems which determine norms beyond and without nature.

This will persist and only education, coercion and protection will reduce (but never prevent) sexual activity at an age deemed by us to be
'too early'.

At the same time consumer society is sexualizing everything from clothes to cars, chocolate to coca-cola. There is no room for "innocence".

The reason why consumerism has latched onto sex is because it is taboo and too exciting. Young people get exposure to unnatural sexualized content whilst "normal sex" is swept under the carpet.

If we want young humans to develop emotionally before sex we have a lot of parenting to do to battle against nature, consumerism and taboos.

The thing is, teenagers/adolescents mature physically and emotionally at different rates. Good sex education focuses on consent, self-respect, freedom of choice and kindness as well as the mechanics. It should also acknowledge young people's feelings - one 13-year-old might still be playing with Lego and wanting a nightlight, another 13-year-old might be masturbating and having sexual fantasies and desires. There's loads of evidence to the effect that good, sensible sex education tends to stop young people having sex before they are ready - and given the prevalence of child sexual abuse in religious institutions, religious leaders should actually be barred from any involvement in sex education.

That last sentence is just so ridiculous. Have you any idea how many kids are abused by their teachers. This is one (admittedly american) article that suggests a child is 100x more likely to be sexually abused at school ! Maybe teachers should having nothing to do with sex education.
www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/

The best sex education is by parents, early in a child's life.

Ours got the very basics by 5 and pretty much everything including same sex mechanics by 8.

It's actually easier to explain as there is less embarrassment at that age.

A huge number of parents at our school confess to being unable to deliver this education and rely on the school to do it.

Educating parents to take responsibility would be best, in my opinion.

People who say 13 year old aren't having sex because their 13 year old children aren't, or they associate with parents who wouldn't allow it need a reality check.

Get out of your bubble and come to a top three deprived area in the UK, speak to the 13 year olds I work with and realise it's A DIFFERENT WORLD.

If you target the average age, 50% of children will already be having sex.

Most young people become sexually active aged 16 and over. Between a quarter and a third of young people have heterosexual intercourse for the first time before they are 16 (Wellings 2001).

www.sexeducationforum.org.uk/evidence/data-statistics

This shows that 66-75% of children aged 16 and under have not yet been sexually active. So whilst some are....it is more 'normal' not to be. Maybe those parents who say their 13 yr olds are not having sex may be correct and not in a bubble!

although I do accept it is more of a problem in deprived areas of the UK. I am not downplaying that.