Is 14 too young

[kitkat1968]

to be studying 'The History Boys' . I know the film has an 'R' rating in USA.
Just canvassing opinion

OMG really to the person who thinks that their 13 year old doesn't know what a blow job is. What bloody planet are you on ? Unless said 13 year old lives in a cupboard and never gets let out you can guarantee he knows what it is and probably knows about some stuff you don't even know about.

It would be fascinating to apply BBFC criteria to plays and books

I think it would be a crying shame to do so. Our minds handle books - and to a lesser extent, plays - in a more abstract way than they do films.

Part of the reason plays have managed to escape classification is because it's still so expensive to go and is consequently mainly a reserve of the middle class. Add to that the fact that parents take their children, children rarely go alone.

Whereas the cinema is relatively cheaper and kids go with their mates so there's no prepping or discussion about what they're about to see or what they have seen. Slap a 12A or 15 on it and the discussion becomes obsolete for some parents.

Sometimes I think I'm against current film classification rules. Obviously I think it's fine to have restrictions on things for young children. U, PG, 12A are sensible rules, if parents use the 12A guideline sensibly. But once a kid gets to about 14-15, I think there are many vagaries and it gets more complicated. the difference between what a person can handle at 15 vs what they can handle at 18 are nuanced.

I saw a brilliant film last year called 'Diary of a Teenage Girl' which was given an 18 rating for the graphic sex scenes. But it was a film about a 15-year-old, and I think a lot of teenagers would have benefited from seeing it and the questions is posed about relationships, self-awareness etc.

I think our threshold for tolerating violence in film is lower than our threshold for sex, which is wrong to me. Violence is always violent; sex, presented in various ways with various consequences shown is more a real part of life and yet it's pushed to the top shelf.

I'm always shocked on this type of thread, how many parents think their teen children are COMPLETELY sexually naive/innocent.

I'm not familiar with the play but I would have thought that as its on the syllabus

A if you want your child to pass there's not much choice in the matter

B the teacher has likely taught it before and come across the issues some parents have with it before so you could discuss with the teacher and likely have your concerns allayed

C your child, especially if they have relatively unfettered internet access, attend a school, will likely already be aware of these issues.

Frankly it's more dangerous NOT to discuss abuse of authority/molestation etc

Some may be interested to know plays WERE censored until the late 60's I think?

Pointythings - that was a bit unnecessary! It wasn't !posters", it was me.

As it goes, I really don't think he does (or didn't a couple of months ago) because I have a vague memory of him asking me when the words blow job were said on tv without context.

My issue though is with teachers having sexual contact with pupils, even if they are almost ready to leave school.

Saying that, I'd happily allow DS to watch it or read it, if the rest of the class were doing it in September.

ditto rainbowunicorn

Ds1 is normal. he goes to school. Hangs out with the other boys. Has had his sex education delivered in the usual ways i.e. a mix of teachers and the school bully boy who loves to catch other people out.

I stand by what I said. A 13 year old of any gender should have had decent sex education by now and should know this stuff. And that really is a parent's responsibility.

It is not about whether a 13/14 yo knows about this stuff, it is about whether it is appropriate to make them write nd discuss it in the classroom .I would have been mortified at that age to be expected to discuss the sexual aspects of the text with a teacher!

kitkat I discussed far more serious sexual stuff with teachers at that age in school - we covered FGM in Geography, spent an entire term on sex education, including discussions on homosexuality, porn, consent and the different in sexual pleasure between males and females. This was in Holland in the mid-80s, by the way. Amazingly enough we didn't die of shock.

The more open and honest and matter of fact we are about this stuff, the better we equip our young people for life in a sexualised world.

"The more open and honest and matter of fact we are about this stuff, the better we equip our young people for life in a sexualised world"

And the evidence backs this up with the Netherlands often cited as a good example. The more open and honest we are the lower teen and unplanned pregnancy rates, people tend to lose their virginity older etc

It's life.

It's as appropriate as discussing death. Of course it's ok to discuss.

Oh dear, better not study any Shakespeare then. Remove "Romeo and Juliet" from the Y9 SATS syllabus immediately!

Well, yes. They used to do school's versions of Romeo and Juliet when I was at school.With all the rude bits cut out.Ditto Ovid

I'd much rather they got the full-on version, discussed and questioned openly. I'm glad we have moved away from 'schools versi.n'.

Not to mention Chaucer, the Brontes, Charles dickens...

Me too pointythings.

Surely better to discuss abuse than have it actually happen!

By all means discuss sex and sexual abuse.

But what I take issue with in the film of History Boys (not seen the play) is the way in which the film itself dismisses what is child abuse. There's no hint of repulsion or condemnation. In fact it goes out of its way to present the abuse an acceptable if not cool part of growing up. It's really creepy.

Or am I completely missing a level of irony?

My DD watched a very graphic video on slavery recently and it upset her. There was no warning but I wasn't concerned. It opened up her mind and that's a good thing IMO

I don't know about the abuse being glossed over. I feel like I have to watch it again to really judge it for myself.
Children will know it is wrong. The fact that the character encouraged it made the character look like a troubled/arrogant/manipulative boy - and the teacher is also troubled but totally crosses the line - it's uncomfortable viewing from that perspective I am not sure it is every playwrights duty to make sure that something has a moral ending, like they do on EastEnders where the baddie always pays their dues in the end, life is complex. You know when you watch it that it is wrong without having to be told it's wrong?

Given that the characters in the play are over 18 it isn't child abuse and given the 'abuse' consists of a bit of groping whilst on a motorbike we are hardly talking Jimmy Saville here.

It is the equivalent of an office letch of the same era smacking the secretary's arse, unpalatable and unacceptable today, but probably something pretty commonplace in the era the play was set, rather than systematic grooming.