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

I like to answer a question with a question:
Why do you ask if I know AD?

I just thought it was weird that you mentioned the person who was commissioned to write the report.

Webquack: try using more lube next time. And if you think that penetration is the only activity that actually counts as 'sex' then this shows how unhelpful your own sex education has been.

I thought it was weird that you asked me if i knew him! I'm just informing you. No secrets - you can find it on the internet

Webquack, not just homosexuality, but all the baggage that comes along with it. Generally a pick and mix from the old testament picked up from scraps read out in sermons. How do you feel about menstruating women crossing water? You probably didn't get told about that one, but I bet you'd want witches banned wouldn't you.

Btw it's not just men anyway. You may not know this if you believe ignorance is bliss, but women too can have loving and/or sexual relationships

webquack on Sun 11-Jan-09 18:34:22
"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."

So are a lot of the things taught in history lessons, citizenship etc. Children are taught about how firefighters work in Infants school- doesn't mean they're actually supposed to be entering burning buildings themselves at the age of 5. They are taught how the electoral system works though they won't actually get the vote until 18. They are taught about oil-drilling- noone expects them to go out and do it. It's about how the world around them works.

If teaching was to be restricted to things that children can do, most of the curriculum would have to be scrapped.

You make a good point - but what you have omitted in your argument is that sex is not just an 'act' - it involves the management of emotions, which only adults are equipped to handle. In fact, being adult is no guarantee that those emotions can be handles properly either! I'm sure you know adults who have been damaged and confused as a result of sexual involvement which has been wrongly handled. Also the reason for SRE being taught is that the assumption is there that young people WILL go and have sex - but as you say not everyone will become a firefighter. SRE is therefore much more personal to them than drilling for oil.

You still haven't told me what your views on homosexuality are.

btw did anyone see Panorama last week - something about sexual abuse or molestation taking place amongst primary school children. I didn't see it. What might that be all about?

No, there is no assumption in the teaching that they have to go off and have sex while still young people. But that is when they are at school, so that is when you can fit in lessons. I never felt pushed into having sex because we had sexual education; I accepted that most of my school education was about things I might do later in life. And it being partly about the management of emotion (which surely also applies to such areas as politics), does not mean my teacher was not fitted to give me the facts.

I do know adults who have been damaged by wrongly handled sexual involvement- and they have almost invariably been the young people who knew too little, who had to rely for information on what their mates told them.

About homosexuality, I do not think it is the remit of the school to take a moral stance on this in either direction.

And the people I know who were sexually abused as children were the one who did not have the knowledge to put into words that what was happening to them was wrong. I have at least one friend whom early school education on the subject might have saved from abuse: she told me once that when she was talked into it by an older child she didn't know what those words meant. It would have been much better for her if she had.

Children are taught at school about managing emotions. Education involves learning to share, take turns, not beat up people smaller than yourself, how to manage anger and hurt etc.
It's the sexually dysfunctional like Webquack, who clearly missed out on a decent, responsible, ethical sex education, who do the most damage. These people who are obsessed with stopping other people from having sex usually crack under the weight of their own fantasies at some stage, and because they are obsessed with the dirtiness and disgustingness and dangerousness of sex, go about getting their needs met in a way that's usually abusive (hiring the cheapest and therefore most vulnerable sex workers, threatening or blackmailing them etc.) or dangerous (they start engaging in auto erotic asphyxiation and sometimes hang themselves. Though this is simple darwinism I suppose.)

I have just skim read this and have to say theat I agree with all of what SGB has had to say.

My child is in reception atm and I have no worries about her taking part in these lessons.

But then she already knows what a condom is she knows about sperm and eggs from when I was pg with dd2 and her godfather is gay.

I have also told her that if anyone touches her in a way she doesn't like or that hurts her she must tell me immediately and I will always believe what she says.

I woudl much rather her grow up and know about these things and fully understand them than to be niave and therefore vunerable when she is teenager and being subject to peer pressure.

oh webquack, I have no idea were to start with you

but pmsl @ MP, that girl is great

Cory - there is an assumption behind primary sre that they will have sex as teens. if it were not the case why are things such as sex clinics in secondary schools being put in place? Again, if schools think kids are unlikely to have sex while under teh age of consent, why all the emphasis on 'safe' sex and the panis about teen pregs?
i think the sex ed. that you had was in secondary school, was it not? and again you are referring to the past - all along this discussion has been about what is currently being planned for the FUTURE - which is compulsory sre for 5-10 year olds. An entirely different matter.
Teachers can impart certain points about sex to kids (at adolescence) but as I have repeatedly said - it will not be set in a context of right and wrong. They will probably say - don't let anyone pressurise you , or only do it if you are both consenting. and take precautions. But they will NEVER say wait until you are married. That would be an outrageous suggestion .
You say the adults you know who have been damaged by sex are those who knew too little. You seem to think sre is the panacea to this whole problem!
You are also trying to justify sre by saying it protects kids from other kids pressursing them into having sex. But cant you see what is happening here? The dysfunctional activities of some kids/adults is setting the agenda for a whole generation of kids. Because a few are like this then the whole population of 5-10 year olds need to lose their childhood innocence so as to be able to deal with these child perverts -or wahtever they are. we should be tackling this from the other end of teh spectrum - and moving away from this obsession with sex - and focusing on good parenting and schools which teach kids subjects which will enable them to get on in life. There needs to be a counter attack on the rottenness in society - but it won't happen if all people ever do is go along with the crowd and never take a stand.

You STILL have not told me your views on homosexuality. I hope you are not avoiding the issue on the grounds that you may make yourself unpopular?

Shells - sounds to me like you are doing a sterling job educating your daughter in sre - so why would you want a school to stick its nose in to what you are so capable of doing yourself? This has been my point all along.

Please dont make the assumption that I am opposed to SRE - I am not - what I am opposed to is this job being taken out of the hands of parents and being put into the hands of schools - who do not know your child as you do, cannot tailor the way it is taught to fit in with your values (unless it is a faith school) and will not impart the knowledge at the right time - which only YOU as a parent can do. A mother has a natural instinct as to what is right for her child.

Definitely agree on Webquack's last post. Parent can educate their children, why take that away from them?

I think I have been massively misunderstood in this discussion on several counts - but thankfully Gorionine, you can see where I am coming from.

Gorionine - did I ask you this before ?- what will you do when sre is made compulsory in primary schools?

If you are opposed to it G please sign the petition, write to your MP, to the head of your school and to your local education authority. Get other parents to do the same.These proposals can only be stopped if parents speak out. No organisation or pro-family group etc will be able to put a stop to this, but only YOU, the consumers = PARENT POWER. MUMS WHO WANT ONLY THE BEST _ UNITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet again I have to reiterate that I'm not a parent but a foster-carer. I have no natural instinct for what is right for my ward.

Your language webquack is all about exclusion. You fail to recognise 'parents' or 'carers' rather than 'mothers'. You also exclude homosexuals from parenting.

she should educate parents through parenting classes things like 'how to teach sex ed' to your children.

i believe knowledge is power and that children need to be educated.

however what i believe to be the right level of education for a 5 year old

and what anyone on this thread believes - might be completely different.

• i really think things like this are a parents job - and i can't help thinking that politicians come up with ideas and then, to empart it to the masses - roll it out through schools.

"by jove, citizenship would be a jolly good thing what! i know we will do this through schools!"

same with sex ed
healthy eating

a much better choice would be to invest in parents and equip them with the skills to do the best job they can.

Webquack I beleive that learning these things in school will only serve to reinforce what she is being taught at home.

dd1's school already teaches SRE in reception but atm we get a consent form to ask if it is okay that our child takes part in these lessons. AFAIK at age five they mainly learn about relationships i.e. mums, dads, step families etc.

I was going to keep out of this discussion, but I would like to point out to those who have joined recently that webquack is I believe campaigning on behalf of a Rightwing Evangelical Christian group called the Christian Institute. A quick Google of this organisation brings up reports that they support Creationism, corporal punishment for children and are extremely anti-gay and anti-abortion.

She has not been very upfront about this aspect of her campaign, and I think it's worth knowing what's behind it.

I really am not that interested in Webquacks life really. My point is that as a parent I prefer to educate my children on the subject myself, nothing to to with her opinion on anything really.