To think that this cartoon really isn't too "graphic" for seven year olds?

[squirrel42]

Full news story is here: the latest Mail-sponsored "uproar" is over a sex education cartoon being shown at a primary school. Parents were apparently asked in advance if they wanted to view it first, some weren't able to attend the pre-viewing session but okayed it for their children to see anyway. At least one was later angry enough about what their child saw and some other children "copying" what they'd seen (presumbly not completely) that they have removed their child from the school.

I found a youtube link to the cartoon they're talking about here (NSFW obviously since it has cartoon sexual intercourse in it). Maybe it's my wooly liberal side speaking, but I really don't see what the problem is with that clip. You don't see any erect cartoon penises or a close up of "the action" just the general bodily movements, and sex is presented as an enjoyable activity engaged in by adults who love each other. Not quite what the parent says in their DM quote: "It should have said in the letter children would learn how to have sexual intercourse".

I really don't get what is in the cartoon that is apparently so objectionable for seven to eight year olds. Thoughts?

"Simples".

Not really. People feel differently and I'm not sure why you feel the need to judge people with different views.

People have a different view. They don't force their way on your children. What's the big deal for you? Why do you want other people to do it your way?

No firstlady: your response is exactly what I mean. You are a bit naive I think.

It's interesting the person who pointed out that we managed for centuries before sex ed lessons. Of course, for centuries sex has been something which people indulged in fairly openly, so no 'common' child (upper class familes were obviously different) could have escaped knowing about it in some form past the age of six or seven anyway. Yes, details probably would have come rather later, but really, this whole concept of 'childhood innocence' has really only come about in the last century or so. Sex never used to be stigmatised in the way it is now, because it never got the publicity that it does today. It was only 'shameful' among the upper classes, who were fussed about bloodlines and such.

Today, yes, different society, but considering that there is not the envorionment to encourage it as there more or less was then, information is not going to hurt at all. If children are going to have sex in their early teens, knowing the ins and outs in advance or not won't make a blind bit of difference. Despite having assumed I knew about sex from reading romance novels on the sly, I honestly went into it knowing bugger all apart from insert tab A into Slot B and jiggle around somewhat, and a bunch of euphemisms for 'penis'. Fortunately I was twenty and in a stable relationship, because my somewhat older partner assumed I knew a lot more than I did, and I ended up getting my DS out of it through lack of appropriate education about contraception. For me, I was old enough, but for others, the same thing will happen only several years earlier.

And they will all hear something about it on the playground from "that" kid with the much older brother or sister anyway. Isn't it better that they get accurate information before the playground gossip starts alongside puberty? That's where ridiculous sex myths come from, alongside what is tantamount to gender bullying via 'cooties' and such. I vividly remember all that crap, and it was totally unnecessary.

Naive in what way? Do you think my children are more likely to have sex when they are fourteen because they knew how it was done when they were four? May I respectfully suggest that you are the naive one here? There are a lot of reasons why teenagers under the age of consent may choose to have sex - low self esteem, wanting to fit in with their friends, seeking affection, even raging hormones, much as the idea of of that is tabu in our society - but sex education is not one of them. Ignorance is not the same as innocence - not even close.
And I am not trying to force anything on your children, that's your interpretation of what I said. I said that I don't think that video is inappropriate for 7 year olds but that it is more commonly shown to 9/10 year olds. I also said that if parents couldn't be bothered to get off their lazy arses and see it for themselves they had no right to complain after the fact.
Nowhere did I say that I thought that every seven year old in the country ought to be locked in a room and forced to watch it. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from sex education. These parents didn't choose to exercise that right.

I wouldn't want my 7 year old to watch it.

Naive in believing that anyone who understands there are different issues surrounding sex than surrounding dinosaurs also believes that "anyone who tells a four year old about sex is lacking in moral values and determined to expose their children to a life of vice..and moral turpitude".

Do you disagree that there are issues of morality, judgement, self respect, safety, self-discipline, self preservation, harassment, bullying, exclusion, social acceptability, aspiration, health, social welfare and oppression around sex?

It would be difficult to do so. How those issues are dealt with varies from family to family. It's very hard for me to judge how different families do it, and I wouldn't want to. It's pointless.

The video seems to go further than the happy medium which most people accept. There is a removal of parental guidance and choice here.

You're awfully judgmental firstlady. I must go I think, you are using many extremes and emotive language to further your argument, and I don't know why.

TheFirstLady I think that's the point that has been missed. Everyone's just assumung that sex education routinely starts at seven, when that's not the case. Perhaps at that school they knew that there was a lot of sexual awareness from a young age, and so decided to trial the video with younger children. Who knows.

Still, the story was clearly presented in a way designed to inflame the debate and so i guess we shouldn't be surprised it's caused controversy.

Here's another controversial one. If sex is so bad, why do we naturally start having 'sexual fantasies' as young teens? Boys have wet dreams, and I personally started dwelling on the subject a lot more, despite being a child with no intention of ever 'doing it' at the time. As TheFirstLady said, choosing to have sex doesn't have to have anything to do with what sex ed the child has recieved. Hormones are a massive driving factor which everyone has, along with peer pressure and a desire to try the forbidden fruit.

DS1 is 6.6 and I woiuldn't have a problem with him seeing it.

This is not about sexualising our children too young, it is about taking away taboos from sex and stop the uptight attitudes we have in this country.

In Holland they start sex education very young and they do not have the problems with teen pregnancy that we do, nor is there any suggestion that they start having sex at a younger age.

thats the thing..you have fantasies in you teens not 6/7 yrs old...I answer any question my child asks and she probably knows and sees more than the average 7/8yrs old same for my 6yr old...but I would not be happy for her to see this film..I'm whos responsible for her knowledge about sex and sexual relationships...why force something on to others?..sex is not bad at all..it great!... but it has its place and its certainly not sport or something done on a whim or pressure...you should do it when you are physically and mentally ready...

"it is about taking away taboos from sex and stop the uptight attitudes we have in this country."

I must come back before saying this: I believe this is what people object to. That it could be a political and social drive rather than about sex education. It's good that someone has come out and said it.

very well said probonino. You have pulled the rug back and exposed the truth.

Hmm. Well, if I am correct, we have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe. SO what wh've been doing is obviously wrong.

I just don't understand why people want to stop their children knowing facts. It's not eduation that drives kids towards sex, it's hormones and instinct. And ignorance.

I'm not even going to bother getting into a personalised slanging match, probonino.
But by ignoring a crucial part of my post you are misinterpreting what I said.
You said "The video seems to go further than the happy medium which most people accept. There is a removal of parental guidance and choice here."
That is NOT the case at all. As I pointed out in my previous post, parents AT ALL TIMES have the right to remove their children from sex education lessons. The parents in this case were offered the opportunity to view the material, did not do so and then complained afterwards.
Nobody is stopping you from keeping your children in blessed ignorance innocence if you so choose.

Rasputin - so if we haven't told our 5/6 year olds all the details about sex, the government should step in & show them how to do it... right....

I answer LO's questions honestly - I have no problem with telling them about periods, where babies come from, how babies get there - when they ask or I feel they are ready to be told NOT when the govt decides they should know. When I do they get facts, feelings - discussion - not a bloody cartoon showing a couple playing chase around the room then him getting his 'stiff penis' into her 'slippery vagina'. Yuck.

It's a revolting cartoon and IMO not suitable for 7 year olds.

Why is it that the slippery vagina and stiff penis are upsetting people? If the penis wasn't stiff and the vagina wasn't slippery then sex would be fairly difficult. These are the sort of questions my children ask (if you say that the penis goes into the vagina to start off the baby it is a fairly obvious follow up question IMO). And then they say "gross" and go off and do something else. This seems to me an excellent (and age appropriate) response to me.

But I'm of the tell them before they need to know school, because that way you won't be telling them when for whatever reason it is too late. Evidence suggests that in countries which start sex education earlier children start having sex later and are less likely to regret it when they do.

I don't think that film is particularly inappropriate for a seven year old, but it's probably better for the age range it was actually aimed at.

It's a bit late to talk about a slanging match when your first post was about uptight prudes. You withdrew that as a joke, which is good, but your tone remains highly judgmental, which is not sensible I think in a sensitive discussion.

You ignored my post about the removal of choice despite the "opt out" availability. It often isn't enough to be able to opt out, as there's such pressure on children and parents alike when this has the stamp of official approval.

Perhaps the parent trusted the school. Perhaps if the school had told the parent there was to be a graphic progression in the nature of her child's sex education, she would have thought better to trust her own judgment.

Seeker: "what we've been doing is obviously wrong". What we've been doing is gradually increasing the detail and practicalities of sex education. I assume you don't think that because of the increase in teenage prenancies tracking that, we should reverse the process?

By the opposite token, it certainly doesn't follow that if what we are doing is wrong, we need to do more of the same.

This is what the International Planned Parenthood Federation" has to say:

"Advocates of the Dutch approach say the practical demonstrations are just a tiny part of their agenda, which encourages teens to discuss the moral and emotional implications of sex. Typical debates include reasons to have sex, what to say if a boy refuses to wear a condom and how to maintain self-respect.

Dutch campaigners say Britain's schools tick the box for sex education by providing biology lessons and free condoms, without arming teenage girls with the confidence to say no to unwanted advances, or to care for their sexual health.

A study of teenagers in Holland and Britain found that while boys and girls in the Netherlands gave "love and commitment'' as their primary reason for losing their virginity, as did girls in this country, British boys were more strongly influenced by peer pressure, opportunity and physical attraction. Further British research showed that one-third of teenage girls lost their virginity to please a boyfriend, while more than half had experienced unprotected sex."

So it's not just "meh", it's not just biology. We do need to have a more vigorous conversation about all those other issues.

It's very naive to say it's just biology, and to imply that if you just give children the facts, they will make sensible and mature decisions about sex.

I must say, anyone who thinks there is a taboo around sex in the UK is fantasising.

In fact, the more I think about it, attitudes like "uptight prude" and the judgmentalism that goes with it are entirely a part of the problem.

Until you can respect that people who hold a different view, or don't want to enjoy sex at a particular time, are not uptight, prudish, frigid, whatever, then you are not going to arm women and girls with the self respect to say No, I don't want this now. Do you think it's necessary to help young women and girls to do this? I do.

Well, the sooner ya start poppin them kids out the sooner ya get the house , innit.... And guvernment will pay ya ya know and stuff. and ya wont have to work and all that.
like wicked.
Naturally Mommies who have tasted the taxpayers generosity will be encouraging their 7 year olds to know 'how to do it' and all that, why break with the family tradition.
It's a small wonder they wait that long, then again, as a poster here advocates, 4 year olds are ripe and ready for full blown sex education, slippery and all.....
Ya go girl.....

What a helpful contribution to the debate - now go away and play, there's a love.

Ever so glad to be of service.....
Why is it so important that 7 year old children know how to have sex? Mind boggles as to what sort of homes those poor things come from...
Then again, everyone has their priorities as to what is important for their children to learn at age 7, sex ed for some, science and maths for others.

probonino, your quote was about teens.... the last time I checked, 7year old children are not considered to be teens.
"Advocates of the Dutch approach say the practical demonstrations are just a tiny part of their agenda, which encourages teens to discuss the moral and emotional implications of sex..."

I am constantly amazed to find that there are 7 year olds whose parents think they know nothing about sex and are not interested in it. 7 year olds are interested in everything!

cartoon was not too bad, wouldnt mind 7 yr old watching it

thisw cartoon makes me chuckle though

@ misdee I knew that hairy Joy of Sex guy would lok better as a cartoon character (see earlier post). And mum's face looked so authentic on the way to Das Klinik just like mine did and not aeven a mere grimace of pain. I was also touched by the imae of the little baby breat stroking its way down the birth canal. Und Vasn't that dear Dr Mengele in the delivery room,certainly a dead ringer.