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?

But if you want a change to the status quo you have to find, express and defend a cogent argument in its favour, and show the benefits thereof. This hasn't been done, and there are enough good reasons, quite apart from the playground sex taunts, to say no.

I wouldn't let my DD watch this. She is 6.5 now and still watches Cbeebies and show me show me is one of her favourites. This might forever alter her perception of what Chris and Pui are up to...let alone Upsy Daisy and Iggle Piggle.

And the questions over the Famous 5 and whether Julian would do this sort of thing...no, she's just not ready and I'll happily tell the school to let her read a book instead.

It's just one of those thing a 7 yo does NOT need to know!!!!

...sorry, incoherent typing as DD is trying to read this over my shoulder and asking "what are you talking about mummy?" aaarrrggggggg!!!!!!!!

I think 9/10 is a very good age to teach the biology of sex education. I also think the programme used in my area is a very good one (the only small problem is that the 80s fashions look very dated but it's a very good programm,e).

Why is it an over 18 on youtube when it is for 7-9 year olds?

higgle, excellent question

interesting...

Because qny representation of sexual intercourse is automatically an 18 on youtube. Bonkers.

I haven't read through the whole thread so apologies if this has already been said.

I remember as a child (about 9) I think being ushered into a film room for THE film-strip about where babies come from, periods etc.
It was only a few years later, that we learnt that sex was actually a recreational thing, and adults did it for pleasure.

And, IMHO, that's the way it should be- present the facts to the younger child about the mechanics of sex, and that will satisfy their curiousity. Fair enough, describe it in the context of a loving relationship but leave it at that.
I remember coming out of the film-room thinking "ew! I'm never doing that!"
(this however, didn't scar me for life, and I eventually came around to the idea!)

All this business of chasing each other round the room with feathers (wtf) and then the bumping and grinding, and position-changing just muddies the waters for easily-confused little minds.
And I think showing those actions can also elicit playground emulation, which opens up a massive can of worms (even if played in innocence - an adult bystander could misinterpret it as more).

There's plenty of time to learn about the complexities of relationships. Stick to the facts, be clinical if you like. Thats all kids can handle.

"Bonkers"?

Mistaken, surely.

Iva, I agree with you.

I stand by bonkers!

What the kids could see every day on the shelves of newsagents is porn. What they could see every day in the pages of their parent's Daily Whatever it's called - Star? - the one that always has pictures of womesn's bottoms in it -is approaching porn

This cartoon is NOT porn, and anyone who thinks it is (having actually watched it, rather than taking their views from teh Daily Mail)) has a seriously skewed view of the world.

Seeker, I might say it's bonkers to want a show a seven year old a cartoon of two people chasing each other around a bedroom and having sex while stressing how much fun it is.

In fact a lot of people might think that.

It's easy to say Bonkers! Much more of a challenge to engage with sensible arguments -- than shout Bonkers! and keep repeating yourself over and over no matter what anyone else says.

Tott was interesting and came up with some worthwhile counterpoints.

DCs were shown this film in Year 5 and it is a dreadful. At no point does it say that the consequences of sex is a baby!

There is a strange comment that "someday they might decide to have a baby" as if you can do something extra to have a baby not that you have to do somethng to prevent having a baby.

A number of parents raised this, but it was dismissed as "it would just complicate matters"

I wouldn't have wanted my dcs to see this when they are 7 but the age of 10 was okay.

I don't think you have actually read what I said. My bonkers remark was addressed solely to people who think this film is porn - and I explained why.

It should be purely biological and just the mechanics of it so that children 8-9 years know how babies are made(of course they might not that before then), then later on when they are a little older, a discussion about relationships, emotional and moral factors about sex.

Ah, there we differ particularly. I think that sex education should NEVER be detached from emotional, psychological, health, relationship and moral education.

i thought you said you just wanted the facts

"arm them with the facts"

7yos are not ready for that kind of education in a sort of "telling" way - it's an imbibing thing at that age -- anyway what kind of a moral education does chasing each other round the bedroom and saying this is fun fun fun give a 7yo.? load of old rubbish Seeker.

As a matter of interest, barefootinthepark, have you actually seen the whole film, or just this particular 2 minutes?

I have seen the whole film , we were shown it before dcs saw it in year 5. It treats sex as a fun game with no consequences! No mention of STI's or resulting babies if you are not careful.
I know the other parents in the room were a bit about the message.

NO, I read about it earlier in the thread. Is it different to the way Bruffin describes?

"Arm children with facts - including that sex is pleasurable and fun...accurate information is vital for children..The sooner they get the information the better .. And knowing the facts is the best possible way to counter the tide if misinformation that surrounds them.."

Sex is not always pleasurable and fun and neither are the consequences. These are facts too. Sex can be unwilling, forced, painful, humiliating, risky, can lead to infertility, illness and death.

Let's imagine being truly acurate. Would you like to arm them with those facts too?

You know, I almost dare you to come back and tell us you think it's appropriate to teach seven year olds about rape and prostitution. As you're such a big fan of "the facts".

Wait a minute - you're now objecting to the film because it's not graphic enough?

Rape and prostitution are about violence and the subjugation and objectification of women. And about economics. Not about sex. So the discussion of them would be entirely inappropriate in a film about sexual intercourse.

I must have seen a different film to Bruffin - the one I saw had a lot about the fact that sex was for grown ups, for example - ther was no suggestion that it was the next item on the lunchtime playleader's list of activities.

Not at all Seeker. I think you know that, but are being obtuse on purpose because you think that at long last you may have made a point. I'm happy to disabuse you of your misconception.

You are obsessed with the notion that seven year olds need to know how sex feels. Well it quite often feels shitty and painful. Why not tell them that? Or is it just the fluffy bunny fairyland sex you think they should know about?

Because that'll really help them, imbibing that as an idea when they take everything on trust

You are being utterly, utterly, ridiculous. You want to tell children that sex is pleasurable and never anything else. Well that just isn't true.

If they need to know the facts, tell them the mechanics. Why talk about feelings at all. That's for later.

So ridiculous. Almost everything you just posted is hopeless.

The film I saw was the one in the you tube film, I didn't say they treated it as a game for children to play, but it does not deal with the consequences of sex because we questioned itat the time.
As I said previuosly babies are mentioned as if you have to do something extra (something like "and then one day they might decide to have a baby"

Sorry, barefootinthepark - that was just a silly flippant remark - that's why it had a grin after it. I shouldn't have said that. But the rest of my post, dealing with rape and prostitution was really quite serious.