Sex Education in Primary Schools - I've been to the meetings and I still feel uncomfortable, is it just me?

[Rhubarb]

I sat through a meeting last night about the kind of sex education that will be provided to our children, starting from Reception up to Year 6.

I agreed with everything the guy from the Education Dept said, about openess and focusing more on relationships and emotions etc. Then they showed up clips of the video they'll be using to teach the kids. So far so good.

In the section aimed at 5-7 year olds it showed a cartoony illustration of a girl's bits and went through the names - this leads to the vagina, this is a clitoris. Then it said "the clitoris is a small bump at the front, it can sometimes get hard and this can feel nice" - we weren't shown but apparently the video says the same thing for the boys. An audible gasp and murmurs rose up from us, the parents.

For the age bracket 7-9 they add the words "if you touch it, it can feel nice".

Myself and some other parents felt uncomfortable with this and we had a discussion with him at the end. Everything he said seemed to make sense, about not making sex seem dirty, it's natural, it feels nice etc. Not being ashamed of their body parts, and focusing on the fact that girls can feel nice as well as boys.

So why do I still feel uncomfortable with this bit? I don't think I would have an issue with that aimed at older children, say in Year 6. But for this age, I have this niggly feeling that just isn't right.

So often as parents we can only rely on our instincts and we are told to follow them as much as possible. Yet when it comes to sex ed we are told that our instincts are just our hangups about sex and to ignore our feelings and trust what they are saying.

So I wondered what you lot had to say about it all?

No, its not so hard to grasp. However, I am pointing out to you that YOU are uncomfortable with the word masturbation being used. That's fine, but its not the same as it being a word used mainly in paedophile circles. That's how YOU feel (again that's fine), but child psychologists also use it when talking about developmental stages so the paedo-connection is in YOUR head. And actually I think it goes a long way to explain why you are uncomfortable.

And perhaps if I understand that its not very nice to call YOU a prude, then you might understand it is not very nice to say that I use the same terms as paedophiles?

(not that I ever calle dyou a prude I don't think.I might have thought it though)

Gotta go, got a long day tomorrow.

I respect all views on this thread, I really do. I'm open-minded enough to take those views on board. I may disagree with some of them, but that doesn't mean to say I think you are completely wrong. It's a sensitive subject and a fine line to cross. I just with the government would respect our choices as parents. We are not all the same, that's something to be proud of, not ashamed of.

I'd like to keep my children as children and not drag them into the adult world. They know enough for their ages. I plan to be completely open with them at all times. But I want to do that, I don't want the school forcing my hand.

My mind is made up on this now. But this thread has been very very useful and raised many difficult issues. Thanks to all who contributed. x

FM, we all use terms used by those people, whether we know it or not.

I'm sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention. My opinions are clouded by my experiences, aren't yours? I feel that the schools are too keen to overload children with information without adequately thinking of the consequences. I'd like to know from others who have seen the whole DVD if it does touch on safety or not - because I didn't see evidence of that.

Rhubarb, no no I never really get offended. I will go away and have a think about this thread. I think you make some very good points that I do agree with. I can see its not black and white at all.

"it usually means the stimulation of a sexual organ whilst thinking of sexual practices such as those with George Clooney whilst trying to achieve a climax. Ditto with men (although not with Clooney unless they are that way inclined). Children do not do this. They fiddle because it's comforting, because it feels nice, they have none of the sexual connotations we have with this kind of stimulation. So I do not use the word masturbation in relation to children."

I (and I'm sure many others) don't masturbate thinking of sexual practices. I see it mostly as a bodily function, the orgasm bit anyway. Sometimes it is over in 60 secs, no thinking required. Children don't do it for sexual thinking, you're right, they don't know what sex is but they do do it for pleasure.

To say that talking about things like a clitoris ad masturbation is playing into paedophillic hands, is pretty daft

We as women have had to fight long and hard for our sexuality, part of that was learning that women can enjoy sex. Not that long ago, women were being married off at 16-18 without having any understanding of intercourse, and many were led to believe it was wrong and dirty and good girls didn't. We need to teach our children to have no hangs up with regards to their sexuality. Teach them young that to touch yourself is no way a bad thing. Teach them the mechanics and the words so nothing is taboo. Then when they get to the dreaded teen age, they may have enough knowledge and self confidence not to drop their knickers at the first boy that waves a willy

To a child, knowing they have a clitoris, is no different to teaching them that they have knees or eyeballs. The earlier proper language is used, then there is less chance of embarrassment later, it just becomes the norm.

i have to say i agree sacredlove (what a name!!!!!)

I agree with sacredcaredlove too. I really don't think that talking to our children about their bodies and feelings (including sexual parts and feelings) plays into the hands of paedophiles. There are a very small number of very very sick people out there who will use whatever justification they can for what they choose/want to do. That should not mean children should be stopped from knowing and understanding about themselves. Because that is really important if we want to have a generation of young men and women with positive healthy attitudes to their bodies and sexuality.

I do however think it incumbent on schools when introducing new programmes that they know are going to be very sensitive to many parents, to make sure they do so in a way that doesn't make parents fearful. That can only be very counterproductive. I also think we have to recognise that many of us have been brought up to have very contradictory thoughts about sex, especially when it comes to our daughters.

So I think Rhubarb's school should have shown the whole DVD, and been really clear what other message they were going to give, any other materials etc, and allowed discussion, or encouraged parents with concerns to have some way to raise them. I haven't seen the DVD, so don't know whether it is excellent or awful, so can only say in principle that I think it very important to talk about such things in a gradual way from a young age. Actually I think that is much more important than making a big deal about stranger danger, which I think is much more likely to make children fearful and confused (apart from the fact that mostly it's not strangers that children should worry about in any case). I told my children that these things are private, and that if they ever felt uncomfortable or worried about anything they could always talk to me, and that families don't keep secrets. We've also talked about other people they can go to if they need help in any situation. I don't think they need more anything more graphic than that.

I do think one problem is that schools (in general) do seem to be very poor at communicating with parents. It never seems to be consultation, always telling. And that is very disempowering.

"paedophilia will be accepted as the norm such as homosexuality"

Ah I see, you just lost pretty much any sort of credibility as far as I am concerned.

Paedophilia will never be OK because of the age difference (and resulting power/consent issue) between a child and an adult - it doesn't get its unacceptability from the fact that we see children as completely nonsexual. It could never be OK even if a child appeared to be entirely happy with being with a paedophile - that would be irrelevant so long as the power/consent/age issue was there. Paedophiles who do things to children may try to rationalise what they do by talking about enjoyment, early sexuality or whatever, but no amount of talk like that will get rid of the age issue, and it's that that makes it so completely wrong, and entirely the responsibility of the adult involved (as I understand it they'll also try to rationalise it by saying a child led them into it). We aren't playing into paedophiles hands by talking about children having feelings that are romantic or sexual, because paedophilia still wouldn't be OK even if those feelings were like that at whatever age. The age/power issue will never go away for paedophiles - it takes away all possibility of truly free choice or consent from one party, the child, and so makes what they would like to do forever unacceptable and wrong - regardless of what feelings a child may or may not be experiencing.

I do think we play into paedophiles' hands whenever we surround certain parts of the human body and what those parts do with secrecy and mystique rather than simple, gently and appropriately explained, facts.

Still a bit baffled as to why it is so important for kids to know the correct names for their bits at this age. To the poster who said you would call a knee a knee- well, actually, you would, but you should call it a stifle joint. And an elbow is actually a humero-radial joint. But we all know what we mean when we use more colloquial names, so what is the problem? If we had to use THE correct name for all the parts of our (and our kids') bodies, it would be right pain in the cervical vertebrae.

As to telling children self-exploration is "normal"- why would they think it ISN'T, unless people draw attention to it and make it so. They will surely assume it is natural and normal, unless they have somehow been taught to be ashamed of their bodies beforehand. Should we also tell them it is normal to get an itch? Or to sneeze? Why make it such a big deal?

I think you are ignoring the reality of the situation though. The fact is that many many women do have issues with their bodies, and they do pass those down to their children. It's very hard not to.

The very fact that there is no one widely accepted name for girls genitalia is evidence of this. There have been many threads on Mumsnet about what word to use, and there are many many different words in use by many families. This does pose a problem when it comes to child protection issues (if you don't know what a child is talking about it can be difficult to pick up that there is a problem). How many of us feel entirely comfortable talking to our daughters about their genitalia, even when we are talking about really mundane things like how to wipe their bottoms. After one thread here I tried to use Vulva and really struggled, and yet I have no problem talking to ds about his penis /willy.

I wonder if there was a widely accepted term whether there would have been less gasps at Rhubarb's school meeting? Does "the willy sometimes gets hard and this can feel nice" somehow feel much less threatening?

Good points made by joolyjoolyjoo.

ihatemyjob perhaps you missed the crucial point I was trying to make, that even at the age of 10 my childhood self was decidedly NOT interested. Perhaps other people are more aware at that age, I have no idea, just giving my own perspective.
Children already learn the proper names for parts of their body in Science lessons, so I don't see any need for a separate lesson to cover sexual relationships. Young children should not be having such relationships, thats just twisted.

please come and help me on this thread

Morloth - how disgusting! You just misquoted in the worst possible way and I can't let that pass. That quote is what I said is THEIR argument - that is NOT my argument at all! And I certainly don't want anyone thinking that it is.

I've done more thinking about this. So they might touch themselves - big deal as others have said. Therefore why turn it into one? My ds likes to stroke his hands and arm because it feels nice, but that doesn't mean I have to make him watch a DVD about it.

It is only a small part of the DVD as someone else said, but nevertheless, it's there and I'd rather it wasn't.

You tell a child that it's ok to touch themselves and that it feels nice, but it's not ok to touch others or have others touch them. For yr1 kids this is a very confusing message. The DVD goes on about their bodies, where babies come from, how they are born and relationships. Which is fine for Yr 1 kids, no problem. Why do they need to know biological terms for parts of them? Why do they, in fact, need to know every detail of sex at their age? It's not relevant to them. I'd much rather my children found out about it in a natural way, to be sat with their peers in a classroom setting, being told by a teacher, is not a natural setting. It automatically tells the kids that this is something that is a big deal if they have to learn about it in class in such a way.

It's not right for my children, I want to assert my right as their mother to tell them in my own time, in my own way, when I feel it's appropriate. I'm not being dictated to by the school or anyone else.

Science lessons at primary do not cover naming parts of the body, and I don't think ever have done. When I was at school this happened half way through secondary school, which was ridiculous. My kids have learnt about recycling, electricity, light, magnets and other practical stuff in Science (they are 8 and 9). Surely growing up, relationships and sex is better taught in PHSE? Even better if it's already been talked about at home, so there are no surprises all round.

Rhubarb, sounds as if the best thing for you and your daughter is to take her out of this session. It's a pity the school have handled things so badly.

problem rhubarb is that 'natural ways' often involves unbelievable misinformation: periods are dirty, you can't get pregnant from doing x y z etc etc you know what i'm saying.

question is would you be up in arms about a dvd talking about how stroking your arm can feel nice? no. so what is the difference.

and would you feel upset about your dd learning in year 1 about for eg. the duodenum (part of the intestine). so what is the difference?

i really don't see what is wrong in the way my ds(15) has been taught so far. has it failed? i don't think so

we're more open as a society now, the sex education show on channel four a while back proved that.

I just don't think it's necessary. It sends out a confusing message for the kids. Sex is complicated. If you tell them that it feels nice to touch certain parts of your body, you then have to explain that they can't do that to someone else and also that they shouldn't let others do that to them. And if sex is so nice and natural, they will want to know why they can't do it now, why it's illegal until they are 18. Sure you can say it's because it's a special thing - but the more you talk about sex, the more questions it leads to the more explaining you have to do with a child who is already very confused by this point.

I would much rather wait until their understanding has matured.

I agree rhubarb. All education, especially at this tender age, should be RELEVANT. For most 5 year olds, sexual feelings and sexual relationships are not relevant. Those being abused is a different thing. My DS knows quite a lot about the workings of sex and how babies are made, because he asked when he had just turned 4. I wouldn't talk about how a clitoris felt when it went hard - because it is not relevant to him. He also knows a lot about how the rest of the body works because it interests HIM. My DS 1 (3 years old) knows that the seed comes out the mans willy to make a baby. That's as much as HE wants to know.

Unfortanately in an attempt to protect a lot of children who are not parented well, these government policies will be exposing a lot of children to confusion.

I think you misunderstood me jemart. If you had had some info before 10 you may have been interested in the way that young children are mostly interested in new subjects. I don't think science lessons in Key stage one would be that detailed.

Its not about relationships its just telling children that its ok and not odd to do certain things. Its not saying you are odd if you don't do them. I hope our school get thats dvd soon.

Although flippantly I wish someone would tell my son its wrong cos he spends far too much time with his hands down his trousers.

My children didn't appear to be confused to hear that there are things they might like to do, that are private and just for them. Likewise the whole this is something you may wish to do when you are grown up and find someone you love, is again a concept that they found easy (I think small childen are quite romantic). They just accepted it, as small children do when someone in authority says something. We did have some interesting discussions as to why you couldn't marry your sibling a few years ago, which developed into how genetics works. The concept of private space (esp when you have close siblings) developes fairly early I think. We have had many conversations about many aspects of relationships, sexual development etc. I haven't noticed any worries arising in them as a result. Generally the conversation just moves on when they get bored. I do think adults worry about this sort of thing much more than childen do.