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?

typos agin SORRY even, image breast. Was larfin too much innit

I wouldn't want my 7 yr old dd to watch that, and I didn't even trun the sound on!

Do they have to know postitioning etc...?

Dd knows the mechanics through my explanation, and has known since she was 5 ish. She's got yrs ahead of her to discover more.

Seeker raised the issue of teen pregnancies, musing that we were obviously doing "something wrong", thus there might be a place for such a cartoon in schools.

I was pointing out that what we do wrong might not necessarily involve the volume and biologically graphic nature of sex education.

I was always advised that the thing to do on sex ed with the young and pre-pre-pubertal is to answer questions. See how far their curiosity takes them and answer questions truthfully, without embarrassment, maybe with a bit of humour etc etc. If they stop asking the questions for a bit they've had enough, and need to process.

This cartoon seems to takes it further than that. Whether they're ready or curious or not, they're going to watch two adults having sex in a cartoon. I don't think that's necessary: I don't think it should have the stamp of official approval. Parents can do it if they want, on a dvd maybe, but I don't think everyone should be forced to see it or forced to possibly stigmatise their children pulling them out of it.

Erm SEeker not child dont generalise! Just because yours may be and are interested does not mean every 7 year old is

They might be interested in the body and how male and female parts look like but not necessarily sex unless they have been exposed to it earlier on, mum pg or hearing mum and dad have sex etc. Yes i wonder if they will show different positions like someone else said and different types of foreplay too

Is it the place of primary school to tackle taboos in the adult world about sex and related uptight attitudes?

And, if school does have a part to play with regard to the social, moral and cultural attitudes towards sex, then I would strongly argue that this debating element of it is far more suited to high school.

Teaching 7 yr olds about sexual intercourse in order to dispel the attitudes of adults in wider society, should not be the role of primary education.

I absolutely wouldn't want any primary school-aged child of mine watching it

I do wish someone would explain to me what harm could possibly come from watching this video!

And whatever it is, will it also happen to my country-raised children who have seen animals mating since early childhood, because I didn't go down the "She's giving him a piggy back, darling" line!

what about a mini Karma Sutra then! Ok Seeker its up to you whether your dcs watch the video fair enough if your ok with that, but not everyone will be happy with their dc watching it and I as a parent can withdraw my dc from seeing it. I am no prude if my dd in the future askes me about sex and related topics around it i want to be the one to answer as open and honestly as i see fit not the choice taken out of my hands by the government.

There are no taboos. The stigma nowadays is attached to not having sex.

Everyone is different and every child is different: this should be respected. It is a forcing of a certain way. You don't see that it does any harm Seeker, others are more cautious. Why should you force your way on others? They are not forcing their way on you.

To properly discuss this we need to know whether there is truth in the idea that choosing to have sex has nothing at all to do with sex education received. Also, whether people think earlier sex is desirable or not desirable.

There is a certain adult innocence in imagining that children won't act out what they've seen, or use it to tease and stigmatise. They already do, and who knows if this could make it better or worse.

Being called frigid or a prude has no effect on a 40 yo woman with a robust sex life and a healthy self respect. We know it creates pressure in a 13yo who lacks confidence, whose friends may be egging her on, who may be bullied, who may be "in love" with her boyfriend, who has put condoms on cucumbers and seen videos of sex in school from the age of seven and upwards.

Sex ed should be combined with discussion about the issues, and you can't do that with a 7yo. It's not fair.

I always thought that country people with all the mating and so on did have sex earlier. This is entirely ill-informed prejudice.

Hear hear barefootinthepark!

Just seen the video. I have no issue with DD knowing about sexual intercourse (she knows a fair amount) but that actual video, for want of a better word, is icky. I don't think it helps to explain the importance of being in a mutually respectful and loving relationship. And the cartoon figures themselves look awfully strange to me. Frankly, I'd prefer if DD (8) watched real humans making love (obviously without any kind of graphic penetrative shots or anything).

I agree that giving children knowledge will not make an iota of difference to their 'innocence' and that education and not treating sex as a taboo are important in combating teenage pregnancy. But in terms of whether that video will help with this, I doubt it.

As the oldest of 4 I don't actually remember a time when I didn't know the mechanics of 'where babies come from'.

I do know that there was a total disconnect in my mind though - just because I knew the mechanics of what went on, there was no thought of getting up to that kind of thing myself.

I think you'd be surprised how matter of factly most kids would take this.

barefootinthepark - So you're telling me that the widespread condemnation of anyone in their teens who has a child, and the massive scandals which flare up about 'teenage pregnancies' and undeage sex in general which is common to most of the tabloid and 'broadsheet' press doesn't represent a society in which there are lage sexual taboos?

Of course sex isn't a taboo among the younger people - why on earth would young people have sex otherwise! But you're not telling methat the coincedence of most sex education at the onset of puberty and the start of many children's sexual experiences at the same time (My DP, a thoroughly non "benefit scum" type such as Rollmops seems to view most of the population , lost his virginity at 13.) is not connected?

If you tell a child about something their body can satart doing now and then tell them that they aren't allowed to do it for another four years at least, how many do you seriously think will wait that long? Whereas, if you tell a child who is not pysically capable of having sex that when they become 'a grown up' that this is what they may choose to do with someone very special, do you think there will be the same immediate temptation to go out and try it in any way other than bopping up and down on someone with all their clothes on? Children play 'doctors and nurses' and 'Mummies and Daddies' from Year 1, and no one minds that. How on earth are children who are trying to copy their parents do anything more harmful than mimic a video of two people bopping up and down on each other until the next craze sweeps the playground? Or have we forgotten the attention span of the average primary school child?

Quite apart from this, although one school took the unusual stpe of presenting thie video to a class of seven year olds, the video is not normally shown until children are nine or ten. So the ridiculous notion that the government has some conspiracy to sexualise pre-pubescent children is not only far-fetched, it isn't even supported by the Dail Mail article which started all this nonsense in the first place.

"So you're telling me that the widespread condemnation of anyone in their teens who has a child, and the massive scandals which flare up about 'teenage pregnancies' and undeage sex in general which is common to most of the tabloid and 'broadsheet' press doesn't represent a society in which there are lage sexual taboos?"

Yes I am.

I don't understand your second paragraph.

Your third point: how nice that you don't mind, I don't mind if your children see it either. Why do you mind if my children don't see it?

Your fourth point: it was someone else on "your" side who said it was about stopping uptight attitudes and removing taboos, somebody on "my" side said something similar about social engineering and undermining parents and family (which it certainly would if the parents don't want the children to see it this way). Nobody has said it is a conspiracy to sexualise prepubescent children until you did.

seeker, I don't think any harm will come of it. But taht isn't the issue, as I see it. I am concerned with education, with what children should be learning and about the government and various other organisations dumping more social programmes into schools in an attempt to cure what are seen as some of society's ills.

Its personal choice as far as i am concerned if you dont want your DC to know about sex at 7 that is down to you, dont let them see the video. I want my DD to be informed and ask me any questions she has about sex,i dont see how this is going to make her go out and have sex at 13.the more she knows and understands the more likely she will be to make the right decision, at least i hope this will be the case.

Perhaps a study should be done, those happy for their cildren to see it show it to them, those not, dont. we can then all meet back here when they are 18 and see whos dc has had sex, at what age and if they are pg or had a baby. There may be a link you never know.

I'd just like to point out that the rates of teenage pregnancy are in fact going down. Whether this is a result of better sex education is probably not knowable (one of the problem with health promotion programs is it is very difficult to demonstrate their effectiveness). I certainly agree that sex education should be mostly focused on relationships, feelings and the wider aspects of growing up, but it was my understanding that PHSE does involve lots of stuff on friendships, mutual respect etc.

you're right, they have just gone up for the first year in five

so maybe we aren't doing anything wrong -- maybe we had got it just about right for the previous five years

there is a good article in the guardian and it talks about places like Oldham which have seen a 27pc drop

still see no need to show this to 7yos in school

Nooka it's plainly not enough unless the appeal of single motherhood is simply stronger

"it's not enough" refers to your last comment about friendships and mutual respect debates and so on

No sadly not. But helping girls to understand that there are many opportunities open to them, and then enabling them to realise them, whilst helping boys to respect themselves, each other and girls too takes more than just a few lessons. Personally I think that high rates of teenage pregnancies are just one of many adverse outcomes from getting the collective bringing up of our children wrong (and it should also be recognised that at least some of the pregnancies are wanted, planned and for the couples involved a happy event)..

This cartoon doesn't contribute. It may not have negative effect but there it doesn't contribute anything positive. Where there's such a difference between parental perspectives, it's better left to the private arena.

There is a wider issue than teenage pregnancy though. It's not as if underage sex would be ok if it didn't result in pregnancy.

Children have enjoyable sexual feelings very young but they don't know they're sexual. This cartoon tells them that they are sexual feelings and that they're fun.

I would not want my DCs to see it at 7yo.

I have not seen it myself . I tried to see it on youtube but it said you had to sigh in as the content might not be adapted to under 18 wich in my opinion gives a hint that it is not adapted for all 7yo if any.

On another thread on the same subject, someone who had seen it and was telling the content mentionned:

-sex pleasurable
-stiff penis
-wet vagina

At no point she said "well there is a lot about contraception and encouraging to wait until really committed to soemeone before having sex.", was there anything about it(contraception) or not? because if there was not, there is absolutely no point in it if the aim is to lessen the number of teen pregnancies.

"I would not want my DCs to see it at 7yo.

I have not seen it myself . "

Seeker, it's a bit like you, making your points without either reading or thinking about other peoples.

There've been loads of comments posted about what you've said, some of them good ones, which you haven't replied to. Perhaps because you can't? But you chose to respond to a pretty easy target.

The poster above gave pretty good reasons actually. She's had reports of what it's like, can't see it herself, so made a cautious judgement. Where's the problem