my 8 year old DD just had sex ed lesson ???? Is this right

[mrsrat]

My year 3 daughter just came back asking how old i was when i learnt about vaginas and penises !!!!!!!!! We had no prior warning about the lesson but I did with my eldest. Is this right ?

Surely the school just has a general sex ed policy set up already which is avaialable for all? Therefore they'd have no reason to send out a letter outlining what they will teach that day.

General ex ed starts in foundation/reception and even at key stage 1 should include the correct terminology for body parts.

TBH at age 8y they do need to be doing some sex ed ideally, esp if not being done at home. DD is 9y and just finished y3. She is already developing visibly and really does need to be aware of periods and what other changes will happen over the next few years. Periods could be way closer than I had ever imagined tbh considering she was onyl 8y when she began developing. Now I have discussed these things with DD at home anyway but not sure she's covered it much at school, which I think really they ought to be doing.

I was upset because I didnt ( still dont )think it is appropriate for my child to know yet how babies are made. She knows the correct names for genitalia but not the specifics. It is quite simply the way I feel . However i take on board everyones comments but dont think I will post again as I find some people answers really quite vitriolic

They are like that here mrsrat - just ignore what you find upsetting. I think people are trying to be protective of your DD. No-one wants to have to be the one to explain to a little girl that she's not bleeding to death because her parents either didn't bother too or chose not to. Really, put yourself in her place, wouldn't you WANT to know what's going to happen to you? And how is human reproduction any more or less icky than animal reproduction, surely you read her books about chickens, eggs, farm animals etc. This is a science issue not a moral one IMHO. :)

Mrsrat you might want to check out the science national curriculum. That is the bit you can't withdraw your child from and includes human reproduction and doesn't need parental permission. Although many schools would still write home about it.

I am only 31 but I am surprised how young it is taught now too mrsrat. I only have a toddler and a baby on the way so not sure how I will feel later, but I don't recall doing anything like that when I was at school.
Someone mentioned that your daughter might start her periods soon?
Most girls start about 12/13 dont they? Surely there is a difference between an 8 year old and a 12/13 year old?
I remember us having a talk about period stuff when I was in the first year of secondary school and that seemed appropriate timing.

"I was upset because I didnt ( still dont )think it is appropriate for my child to know yet how babies are made."

But what's so complicated and secret about it?

A man and a woman have body parts (penis and vagina) that are designed to come together really close, so that the egg and the sperm can meet up and develop into a baby.

The whole arousal/stimulation/romantic side of sex has nothing to do with the process of conception.

Ivor I have known a number of girls who have started their periods at age 9! So these talks need to happen earlier..

No sex ed means by y3-4 your DD would have heard the weirdest rumours and would believe them because nobody informed her correctly. I told DD the truth when she insisted that getting licked (anywhere) by a boy is how you get pregnant and was the same as "sexing".

My mate kissed a boy at age 11 or 12, then she put on a lot of weight and was convinced she was pregnant as a result of the single kiss. She was extremely stressed out for months totally convinced she was pg and had brought great shame to her (conservative Catholic) family.

It's up to you, but friend & I both vowed we'd never run a risk like that with our daughters. They would absolutely not be allowed to believe rubbish beyond the age when they were old enough to calmly remember & understand the truth. And when you're open with them then they come back and ask you more questions which you can frame with the right values you want them to have about sex; YOU make yourself the authority by being truthful with them, unlike the strange rubbish they keep hearing in the playground. This enhances your credibility in the matter.

I'm with pseudonomic I want to pre-empt sex education in school.

I want my DCs to be the one who know everything at such a young age it is not shocking, embarrassing or anything. I'm drip feeding the information so there will be no 'big reveal'. I remember feeling quite disturbed when I was told about periods etc. but there would have been girls in my class who had been having them for years.

But why is the school'splace to teach them at this age if everyone on here thinks it is fine, why not do it themselves at home?
Why exactly do they need to know at this age about the ins and outs of it anyway?
How will it it help them - I genuinely ask this question because I want to know. Ok so some girls start periods at 8/9, what if girls started them even younger would we then keep lowering the age to adjust to a few?
Most girls will have a first period between 11 and 14 (that is most) we will always have the exeption in whatever we teach.
So please explain to me why it needto be taught at such a young age?
Is it in case of abuse?,Early sexual encounters?,Or just because they should add it to their common knowledge?
I understand teacing body parts which I would prefer to call biology rather than 'sex ed' and I know children will ask questions but where does it stop?

I may be wrong but I believe the samaritans were set up because of a story about a teenage girl committing suicide becuase she started her periods and had no idea what was happening to her and no one to ask about it. She thought she had an STI.

Its extreme but it does highlight to me why we need to avoid such ignorance and be very approachable both as parents and as teachers.

Ivortheengine8 Mon 25-Jul-11 20:23:26
"But why is the school'splace to teach them at this age if everyone on here thinks it is fine, why not do it themselves at home?
Why exactly do they need to know at this age about the ins and outs of it anyway?
How will it it help them - I genuinely ask this question because I want to know"

Why do they need to know about photosynthesis at such an early age? How will it help them? Why do they need to know about electrical currents? Why do they need to learn equations?

They won't be fixing any electrics for years to come or making any decisions about the environment or using equations for any practical purposes. But it's going to be hard to cram all the education they need in in the few months before they can actually start using it.

Lots of us think schools are there to provide an education, and that human reproduction is part of what an educated person needs to know. Just like photosynthesis.

Noone worries about how childhood innocence will be damaged by learning about the food chain- which is basically animals killing each other- but for some reason, lots of people feel you cannot be a real child, and have a real childhood if you know how animals (including humans) reproduce their species.

That reminds me -- we got a lovely wildlife video for animal mad DD (then about 3-4yo). Best Wildlife footage ever narrated by David Attenborough type of thing. Probably rated a very soft PG.

It was all sex and violence. I actually found it too shocking to watch myself at times.

Why shouldn't schools teach about bodies & sex along side RE (respect for strange beliefs of others and ethics for how to live your life), science, and History (the Horrible History books allude to a lot of sex and violence, too)? 6yo DS did loads on WWII evacuees last term, if school can teach at that young age about threat of mortal peril, deliberate indiscrimate violence inflicted then why not how life gets started in the first place? Sex = Too immoral for school to tackle, but Violence = Just fine, school can teach whatever they see fit. (? )

Agree with drip-feed approach.

Solidarity with mrsrat, if you're still here.

I posted on this subject some years ago and people went wild when I expressed disquiet about what my ds was being "taught" in his sex education classes.

And it's so boring not to say harmful when people continually trot out the old garbage about ignorance being responsible for teen pregnancy. That might have been the case some decades ago but I think it is now a given that 99% of teen pregnancies now are in response to the fact that many girls see motherhood as a sensible economic pathway, rather than standing in a shop for minimum wage and living at home for ever.

Anyway, also what bugs me is that what is appropriate for a mature nearly 11-year-old girl is certainly not for a summer-born 9-year-old boy - who will be in the same class.

Furthermore (on a roll here!) ds remarked that the films feature such, er, downmarket people and voiceovers. "Me mum and her partner's 'avin' a babye" apparently. It left ds and his mates thinking that only a certain strata of society have sex!

Then your ds perhaps needs some education in not being a revolting little snob, Grammercy

What a quite staggeringly awful post that is all round.

'I think it is now a given that 99% of teen pregnancies now are in response to the fact that many girls see motherhood as a sensible economic pathway, rather than standing in a shop for minimum wage and living at home for ever.'

Please state, with references, the basis for that assertion.

Am also pmsl at the idea that nine year old boys are tender flowers who need sheltering from brutal biological realities which their robust female classmates can somehow cope with.

And frankly, my response to your last point is thank heavens - I really wouldn't want anyone with views like that to run the risk of reproduction. Certainly not with my lovely little girls

In response to the OP: my year 3, being a younger sibling, has read her sister's What's Happening To My Body book from cover to cover several times. Apart from being slightly perturbed about the idea of periods just starting unexpectedly (I reassured her other changes would have happened in her body too) she appears to continue pootling through life, innocence unscathed, a happy little girl of eight.

It is not unusual, ime, for schools to teach SE in the last week of term in manner of hit and run
Fine for parents who are comfortable dealing with questions, but unfair on children who are unable to discuss the topic with family, leaving them confused about certain aspects.

Agree with those who said that SE in school should be a later addition to clear and frank discussions in the home.
Yy to the drip feeding approach.
I suspect that 10yo dd can't remember not knowing about the mechanics of sex. So when her less knowledgeable peers were embarrassed and giggly in the school SE sessions, dd was not.

grammercy

'Furthermore (on a roll here!) ds remarked that the films feature such, er, downmarket people and voiceovers. "Me mum and her partner's 'avin' a babye" apparently. It left ds and his mates thinking that only a certain strata of society have sex!'

I assume you put him straight?
Or have you left him believing middle class babies are delivered by the stork and only people on benefits in tower blocks actually shag?

Ivor - whilst most girls may ntot get their period til 11y+ they will be developing for a good year or two before that generally. The whole process is a package and needs to be taught as such, and it needs to be done before these girls are actaully going through it. Now obviously it is best if parents do thiis anyway, but for the child who has parents who don't then it is even more essential.

My DD is 9 and began to develop last year - she does know what is happening and why and what to expect in the future. But this should be covered at school imo as well.

gramercy and mrsrat

I totally agree with you and I'm on your side (my support here)!

We don't have sex education in my country yet teen pregnancies are virtually non-existent. We have have human anatomy lessons (practically like medicine lessons) from about the age of 13-14. Always had.

We have high morals based on Christian values and very high % of educated general mass of public. Our education stands out (PISA International education league tables). Also we don't have such class divide here and there are no chavs or underclass:-)

Me and my husband took our child out of UK Primary school and we don't regret it. I'd hate my child to be educated in PC Britain nowdays where children are exposed to sex education as early as that.

I would agree that young teenage motherhood is a result more of socioeconomics than sex education provision (or lack of).

When will people realise that 8 year olds aren't being taught about orgasms, sexual positions and facilitating arousal but about basic anatomy, self respect and personal boundaries?

I have met adult women who think they wee out of their vaginas and that their clitoris is a tumour. Surely anything that reduces that level of ignorance is worthwhile?

"I have met adult women who think they wee out of their vaginas and that their clitoris is a tumour. Surely anything that reduces that level of ignorance is worthwhile?"
--------
Ignorance among adults is only created by appalingly low level of education system in Britain comparing to most European countries. In this case: human anatomy of sexual organs should be taught to 12-14 year olds during "Human anatomy" lessons (part of "Biology" curriculum in European countries). In Britain as far as I know Biology is no longer a separate subject and a part of a Science module.

Human anatomy is a serious subject of Biology but for some reason in Britain is only covered at universities (medical schools) to the same extent as in Europe at ordinary schools.

Teaching 6-7-8-9 year olds appropriate technical names for body parts gives them nothing but robbing them of their innocence and is essentially a child abuse on a state level.

"Teaching 6-7-8-9 year olds appropriate technical names for body parts gives them nothing but robbing them of their innocence and is essentially a child abuse on a state level."

What a ridiculous statement. How on earth can telling a 7 year old the correct names for their anatomical parts deprive them of their innocence?

So it's OK to tell them they have eyebrows, shoulderblades and toenails but robbing them of their innocence to tell them they have a vagina or penis? It's just another body part.

Many 12 year old girls will already have started their periods, have breast tissue and pubic hair. But you think that we should wait until they are 12-14 to tell them about these areas?

This information (anatomical parts naming) children always did learn and always will learn from their loved ones (mother or father) and this is ALL they need to know at the above mentioned age (7) in my opinion. But to be more specific on a subject, I also watched these Sex Education video programmes plus printed material to accompany it and I have to say that this was far from just naming anatomical parts by their appropriate names. It was also about clitoris and it's function, about sexual positions, about "pleasure", not to mention some other things. If Britain wants to go Dutch, then it is certainly following their steps at the moment.