Sex and Relationship education for 5-10 year olds.

[webquack]

Hi everyone. I'm looking for mums who are as angry as I am about the current government proposals to introduce compulsory sex and relationship education (SRE)for 5-10 year olds. I am also unashamedly asking for more signatures on the No. 10 website which is asking Gordon Brown to conduct a 12 week public consultation on these proposals so that parents and others can have their say. Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, and this inspite of decades of sex education in secondary schools. SRE hasn't worked. So what does the government do? They introduce the more SRE! Do you want your five-year-old to be naming body parts, being informed about intimacy and what is and isn't appropriate touching? Do you want your child sexualised at an early age and to lose their innocence any earlier than necessary? If not please join the growing chorus of concerned parents by going to: petitions.number10.gov.uk/Parentchoice

Cross posted with Dottoressa.

But homosexuality is acceptable and normal.

Webquack, even if SRE was not taught in schools, homosexuality could still be discussed in many other lessons, English or history for example. So banning SRE is really not going to stop your children hearing positive messages about homosexuality in schools. If you don't want your children to encounter any mention of homosexuality, then you should home educate, because there is no way your views can be accommodated without discriminating against others. I would say the same to a parent who didn't want their child to encounter Christianity in school.

Gorionine, schools teaching SRE is going to be a tiny part of everything they learn about it, as most will come from family, friends and wider sexuality. Schools have to teach something about it, because some of the relationships that children have (managing friendships in communal, institutional surroundings) only happens in schools and schools have to cover issues like bullying, not hugging and grabbing a child who doesn't want to be touched by your child (that's an example on inappropriate touching!). If a child grabbed my child and my child didn't like it, I don't want the teacher saying, 'it's not my job to talk to children about appropriate ways of touching.'

Yes schools do cover a lot of stuff that is ultimately the parents responsibility, but if you have a strong home environment then most of the stuff they are taught in schools won't influence them, but will be there as a safety net for other, less fortunate children.

webquack on Sun 11-Jan-09 16:58:01

"It sounds like you disagree with you revangelical friends - have I got that right? I am asking in order to find out where you are coming from - what church do you attend. What are your core beliefs? "

My core beliefs are evangelical and I do attend an evangelical prayer group, but I believe (as Jesus preached) that the commandment of love takes precedent over any other rules, and that it is sometimes permissible to bend lesser rules to observe the greater rule(pulling your neighbour's donkey out of a pit on the Sabbath). Besides, I see no Bible commandment to the point that SRE is not to be taught to young children. To me, preparing young children to respect their bodies and the bodies of others, which IME is what SRE can and does do, can be a very valuable way of observing the commandment of love.

And I have never heard of an SRE lesson aimed to tell the students that they should be promiscuous.

I think the main reason why I disagree with Gorione about the actual question is that I do not consider sex to be such an exclusively important subject that it alone must not be talked about by teachers.

Morality to me is about many things, what we do with our bodies is part of it, but so is what we do with money, what we do with words, what we do with politics- yet, we entrust the teaching of these other areas in part (though hopefully none of them wholly!) to teachers. So why is sex different? More important? More sinful? The only thing God cares about?

If you say that sex is different, then you seem to say that that there is something potentially sinful about sex that does not apply to other areas of life, that other areas do not offer the same scope for going wrong morally. And I don't see that.

I still cannot see why sex is different or more important than other areas of life.

what publications do youwork for webquack?
because i would imagine that unless its fascists weekly then your views on homosexuality should be seen by your employers.

i bet you don't print such offensive opinions in your articles.

i repeat, why is this wo/man allowed to remain here when UCM was asked to leave for posts of a a similar vein?

Gorionine - I wonder what you will be able to do when the situation arises because one of the controversial aspects of the gov's proposals is that your parental right to remove your child from certain SRE lessons could be taken away. Sir alasdair Macdonald, head of Morpeth School in Tower Hamlets has been commissioned by the gov. to write a report on how he best believes SRE can be made compulsory in primary schools.

petitions.number10.gov.uk/Parentchoice/
The petition asking for a public debate.

Cory, what are your views on homosexuality?

Mamazon - I am freelance. I write for Christian publications - mostly but not exclusively.

Cory you ask what makes the morality of sex different to morality that might be discussed in history classes for example. First, sex is something that adults do, but not children (at least here, where we do not have child marriagessuch as I think take place in parts of Asia). So the timing of SRE is important. Even moral issues in history would need to be age appropriate. You would not take primary school children on a visit to Auschwitz - but older children do go. So there is a right time for children to be exposed to ethical issues. The primary responsibility for teaching children morality lies with teh parents. It's even better if this is backed up by the school which is why faith schools exist - in this way what is being taught at home will be re-inforced at school. That is the ideal. However in the average state school there is a materialistic, secular and humanist approach to the teaching of subjects. By humanist I mean that all events in history, for example, would be attributed to human actions and no mention would be made of a possible 'divine hand'. In other words God is ousted from his own creation - which is bizarre if you think about it.

Mary, mother of Jesus was probably about 14 years old when she got married. In the past 14 year old people would have not been considered to be young children. There was no concept of a teenager in Jesus' time as children did not stay dependent on their parents for as long as they do now.

In many ways having complusory secondary education with quite a narrow curriculum has disadvantages. Teenagers are allowed the same level of responsiblity as primary school children.

Ie. they cannot work and have little choice in how they spend their day. However they still have adult bodies with adult sexual urges.

Unlike Jesus' time abdolensences have limited experience of babies or doing hard work because of small families and being given everything by parents. Prehaps in other countries children mature faster and are less likely to do stupid things like getting drunk or being promisious.

However my arguement does fall flat as both Italy and Sweden have complusory secondary education up to quite a high age and these countries also have small families.

Again, I've not read the whole thread, so I apologise if I'm going over old ground. But does opposition to SRE in primary schools necessarily have anything to do with religion? I am an atheist, and I still believe that sex is something that should be reserved for consenting adults in a long-term relationship - and that it is nobody's business but mine to teach my children about body parts/relationships/the mechanics of reproduction.

i think we can learn a lesson from the jews in this regard. the coming of age or bar mitzvah takes place at age 13 for boys and 12 for girls and is recognised by a ceremony. They are then considered to be responsible for their own actions. i think this rite of passage probably does a lot to develop their sense of accountability. Once a child is made to feel responsible I'm sure that helps them to behave much better - because they are viewed as having come of age. adolescents here don't make that transition until 18 or is it 21? Maybe that is why the teenage years are associated with difficult behaviour - because they don't know what they are.

Dottoressa, not at all. Some things are just common sense- like this. Even tho you are an atheist you probably agree with me that muder is wrong.

Gorionine and Dottoressa I'd say there were two kinds of opposition to SRE.

You feel you could do a better job of teaching them yourself and that's a valid position. Webquack and other fundamentalists think they should not be taught at all or should be taught lies about homosexuality etc.

So while I'd have no problem with you teaching your own children. If we leave it at that we have to let the loonies have it their way too.

You will still get to supplement the lessons and to discuss them with your children. They will have questions which you can answer in your own style.

It's interesting that you hold these views. I think it shows that faith advocates things which are good sense - since you have come to these conclusions without reference to any faith - but probably by thinking it through / life experiences etc.

Onagar you clearly have not read my posts. Of course they must be taught - but not by a school - by their parents - at the time the parents think is best for their child. I hold the same views as G and D in this regard.

Btw Webquack there is quite a bit of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. I guess that's caused by dysfunctional tigers who work too many hours and don't pray enough

Onager - as I say, I've not read the whole thread (probably a mistake - fundamentalists are not my cup of tea, and I would feel very dodgy about allying myself to people who peddle any kind of doctrine). I stand by withdrawing my DCs from the lessons (or I would, if their school were going to adopt them; I am v glad they are not!), so I wouldn't be supplementing; I'd be giving them all the info I think they need at whatever age/stage they're at.

No Onager. It's penguins making 'lifestyle choices'.

Webquack do you know Alasdair Macdonald?

You see - it IS the homosexual thing that upsets you. Tell me, if men were meant to bonk men, then why are the sexual parts incompatible? How do lesbians cope without a penis? It is obvious that a penis and a vagina were meant to fit together - it was intended by design. personally I have never experienced anything being jammed up my anus but it must be flippin sore! ouch!

cascade - I take it from your question that you DO know alasdair macdonald.

Would you like pictures or You Tube links?

That isnt answering my question.

But how can schools not teach relationships? Kipper's mum is in a relationship with Kipper's dad. Do we ban Oxford Reading Tree? Can someone define what specific area of relationships they think is going to be brought up solely in SRE, and not in other areas of the curriculum? i very much doubt that it will be taught in such a distinct way that it is going to be possible to withdraw your child from things you don't like. People who think this way don't seem to have any experience of children of compulsory school age or how they are taught.