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

The Catholic Church approve of the regulations and believe they will be beneficial to children. Jim Rose has specifically said they will be talking about relationships with 5 year olds, not sex.

Webquack, my children attend school alongside children from families headed by gay parents, so they already know about homosexual relationships, but not about homosexual sex, as they are too young to know about any kind of sex.

I think a knowledge of homosexuality is valuable to all teenagers in developing their own sexuality, but I doubt that teachers or parents are going to have the majority say in the development of a young person's sexuality; that will come from information and experiences they can get from wider society, film, literature etc.

I expect SRE will just teach a few basics; the change is really that it will be in the context of values. If anyone can show me documentary evidence to the contrary, then show me the link. I am prepared to change my mind if I am shown EVIDENCE that they are going to teach 5 year olds about sex.

It is the same as the ludicrous drugs argument; 5 year old school children are taught not to take pills out of Granny's hand bag; they are not told how to reduce harm when injecting heroin. But people will still insist that it is wrong for 5 year old children to be educated about drugs!

I believe you are just scaremongering.

I don't want teachers replacing my role, but my children have a strong home culture so whatever the school tells them will have minimal impact anyway. When a teacher tell them something that I disagree with ( example: raisins are good for your teeth), I tell my children the teacher is wrong. Part of growing up is understanding that you can still respect someone and yet disagree with them. Nobody can get it right all the time.

My children are innocent; I don't think their innocence is so weak and fragile that it could be damaged by a teacher saying' 'that isn't a booby, it is a breast.'

Our school was sent the proposals and guidelines. The Head presented them to our Governing body. The Governing body, together with the Head and Staff, decided against implementing them.

The good news (to my mind, anyway) is that the subject of sex education and associated subject matter, such as abuse, was then in the ring for discussion. Whilst what was sent to school was deemed inappropriate, it was felt that school could improve the way in which it does cover such sensitive subjects. School are now putting together their own plans and it was decided that parental consultation would and should be sort.

Personal point of view :- I will be teaching my children the facts of life, when I deem MY children are emotionally mature enough to deal with it. Right now, I have a 5 and 7 year old who struggle with finding the right way to put a pair of knickers or underpants on unless there's a picture of a football or a fairy on the front!

As for terminology - body parts should be named correctly - no probs. Sex and sexuality is my job (and DH's BTW!), at least up until the age of 11. Abuse can and should be covered at school but there are ways of doing it and the information sent to our school fell well short of what any sane, rational person would deem appropriate to this age group. Teachers are trained to recognise a child in an abusive situation. Children give all manner of clues. Further teacher training & support would be more appropriate IMO. Teaching the children is, I suspect, putting the cart before the horse.

Combustible - the reason straight people have not coalesced into one group is because they are not a minority and they have no axe to grind concerning their sexuality. The fact that gays have rallied round to promote their 'rights' which frankly does not permit them to poison my sons' minds, is no more remarkable than a group of pensioners kicking up about the local park being closed down.

Doodle2u - thank you for that informative post. Im also glad your school took the line it did.

Webquack, either your sons will turn out to be gay or they wont. Nothing anyone says to them will make a differenc, and that includes you.

Lots of evidence now coming together about the biolgical factors involved. It is not a lifestyle choice any more than in your case, your gender and hetrosexuality is.

How you respond to homosexuals IS a lifestyle choice and your attitude certainly will have an impact on your boys, but possibly not the one you want.

Milly "I expect SRE will just teach a few basics; the change is really that it will be in the context of values. If anyone can show me documentary evidence to the contrary, then show me the link. I am prepared to change my mind if I am shown EVIDENCE that they are going to teach 5 year olds about sex."

I've got to go and sort the children out now, make dinner and stuff BUT, I'm sure the Gov's notes are kicking about in DH's office. If I can find them (he's away til tomorrow so can't ask him tonight), I'll try and either scan to an appropriate site that I can link to or give you some quotes or something. I think this discussion is academic until you've seen what's actually being proposed.

Doodle

Thank you for this. It is really considerate of you.

Cathpot - what causes a person to be gay?

Doodle - i look forward to seeing the notes.

Webquack, I wasn't being literal! Your view of gay people is disturbing. Are you really so paranoid that you believe groups of gay people are seeking to "poison (your) sons' minds?" Do you really think that they want to trawl schools looking for converts? You have already stated that you think that people can be 'turned' gay.

You seem to be the only one with "an axe to grind concerning their sexuality", because you're the one who believes that there is something wrong with being gay.

shall we put this on hold till Doodle gets the notes?
Hmm, what shall we talk about next - I know! The atheistic bus campaign! (just joking )

Webquack: nearly all human beings are potentially bisexual. SOme are entirely heterosexual, some entirely homosexual, most could be tempted by the right person of the gender they don't usually engage with, in the right circumstances.
You don't have to act on your gay fantasies, but panicking about them to the extent that you obivously do just turns you into a nasty person.

Dear Combustible - they would not see it as poisoning minds - but I do.
Anyway (leans back for a stretch) - i can see myself homeschooling in the end - it's not just the SRE but the low academic standards in schools that are worrying too.
Think I'll hang up my mouse for now. Bye.

Dear sordid gold - i am not nasty. I am a calm, polite reasoned person, who stands up for what I believe. I know it is offensive to some, and always will be - many people were and still are offended by Jesus Christ - maybe that's why I think he is so awesome - because he bucked the trend so brilliantly - he was a real cat among the pigeons when he walked the earth - or should I say lion amongst the hyenas.

man alive - I must go - but sordid you are getting me going again = your argument that all human beings are potentially bisexual and therefore it is ok to be gay cannot stand. All human beings are potentially murderers, thieves and adulterers. i know given the right circumstances i would be capable of all of those - but it doesn't make it right.

What you need to realise Sords is that we human beings are fallen, sinful beings. )I wish I could find a more palatable word than 'sinful' but it does the job so well) we are therefore warped and not what God intended us to be. That is why we are so capable of so much wrong doing. But that can change through faith in christ's redeeming work on the cross - he died for you - yes even YOU. so that you can be good - I mean REALLY good.

MillyR - Im afraid the Catholic Church is not an institution that commands my respect. Indeed their very approval of these proposals confirms they are wishy washy in the extreme. With their record of priests molesting boys I expect they would welcome SRE.

So SRE will help child molesters?

Spring seems so far away, but I'd swear I just heard a cuckoo.

Actually I was a bit hard on the RC church. They do a lot of good work.

webquack, you seem incredibly keen to judge other people's faith on the strength of their position on one question. Reminds me of certain characters in the New Testament...

Cory, what are your views on homosexuality?

I just think the Church needs to stand out and be different.

I have asked you 3 times what your views on homosexuality are. I asked you because you told me you are an evangelical Christian. Until now you have not answered. It can only mean you don't agree with it - but will not say so on this website because of the reaction you might get from other people. you don't want to be demonised as i have been.

It just serves to illustrate the point I made earlier that the moment the Church gives way to pressure to accept things it should not accept they instantly lose their authority and credibility. It says in the bible do not conform to the standards of this worldd but be transformed by the renewing of your minds. And 'come out from among them and be different'
if the world sees that the Church is no different to them they will have no reason to ask whether there really is a God.

Webquack: the position you imagine your imaginary friend to hold on sexuality is irrelevant to rational people - and to all those gay Christians, as well. Jesus as he is described in the bible wasn't averse to a bit of kiss and cuddle with the disciples anyway (or did you not read that far?). The bits in the bible about homosexuality (which is only ever referred to obliquely) carry about as much weight, to many Christians, as the bits about not eating shellfish. DO you want to excommunicate or execute anyone who eats a prawn mayonnaise sandwich?

Honestly, relax about your own bisexuality. Enjoy those thoughts about nice young men in tight white shorts. You don't have to act on them, but you might as well accept them. You'll be happier as well as saner and nicer.

webquack on Mon 12-Jan-09 19:06:33
"I have asked you 3 times what your views on homosexuality are. Until now you have not answered. It can only mean you don't agree with it - but will not say so on this website because of the reaction you might get from other people. you don't want to be demonised as i have been."

No, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you meant what my views on how homosexuality is to be taught in schools. If you meant homosexuality in general, then my feelings are more complicated. Trying to sum them up:

I understand that homosexuality is condemned in the Old Testament

however, with the coming of Jesus and later with the revelations to the apostles most of these rules were superseded- we eat pork and no longer observe the rules regarding menstruating women

there is also a strong feeling in the New Testament that rules may bow to the commandment of charity; for the orthodox Jews at the time observation of the Sabbath was an absolute imperative if you wanted to be obedient to God;

Jesus makes it very clear that he has not come to abolish the Sabbath, but even so the Sabbath rule is subservient to that of charity. He heals the sick on the Sabbath to prove his point (presumably they could wait until the Sunday) and says he would pull out an animal out of a pit in an emergency

personally, this is enough for me not to condemn those of my fellow men, or indeed fellow Christians, who are born homosexual rather than heterosexual

I believe that God has intended most people to be heterosexual (the continuation of the human race depends on that), but also that He has created some people homosexual

this being so, I think it is better for gays too "to marry than to burn", i.e. to find relationships based on love and devotion rather than be restricted to pornography or prostitution

from what I have seen of homosexual relationships at close hand I would say that many of them show a love which we can all learn from- and love teaches us about God

in any case, I do not feel that I have received any calling from God to condemn homosexuality (and yes, I have prayed about the question)

so I shall not do so

this may not make me an evangelical Christian in your eyes, but I do consider myself a Christian and have not yet been thrown out of my evangelical prayer group

btw the fear of being flamed on Mumsnet has very little effect on me. That has happened before. I can live with it quite happily. But what I could not live with is having been weak enough to condemn something I do not feel called on to condemn merely because I was told that this would establish my credentials as a Christian.