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

Kay, you say the Gospel doesn't mention SRE in schools. I'm sorry to be a bit rude - but please don't insult the readers with cerebrally constrained arguments. sigh...ok I'll retort - tho it seems a bit pointless. The Bible doesn't talk about child molestation either but i take it you think molesting children is wrong. For crying out loud - cant sOMEONE come up with a decent argument round here??? It'a all getting so boring.
are you sure you are not just all the same person who is masquerading as 15 different mums - I mean we are hearing the same points over and over again...and I've just seen another from melissa - same old, same old. You should read the whole discussion before chipping in - we have already heard that one - (snooze, yawn, sigh, stretch)

Kay - now I hear you saying we Christians should just accept things the way they are. I thought it was your job as a follower of Christ to be salt and light!! True, we don't live in a theocracy - but don't you believe that Christ's Kingdom and Rule are advancing all the time? Or are your eschatological views that things will reach catastrophic proportions first - and then Christ will return? If that is so then we Christians might as well hang up our boots and head off to the pub for a few pints - try to change the world? You must be mad!

"snooz, yawn, sigh, stretch" - another rude comment

And the bible does talk about child molestation - maybe you're just not aware of it.

No, I'm just fascinated that you're choosing to do this - making your first thread on this support site for parents all a big political bash at the current administration, and airing all the controversial opinions you could possibly manage in a short space of time.

As it happens, I do believe that parents are best placed to educate their children about these sorts of issues, which is one of the many reasons I've chosen to take the responsibility to educate my children directly. But why on earth should children whose parents may not be at all willing to teach them be left to fumble along alone, with the chinese whispers of the playground?

please give me the bible reference fairycake. Yes I could be rude if i wanted - tho nothing on the grand scale of comments made to me in the good ol' days of this discussion

Kay Im FASCINATED by your views. What then is your role as a christian? What church do you attend - i mean in terms of denomination?

Kay, if you don't like it, leave.

webquack - no, I believe Christians are to be salt and light by personally living in as godly manner as possible, and by preaching the gospel of the kingdom - salvation by grace - to all.

We are not called to legislate morality, and re-enact the work of Sisyphus by demanding specifically Christian legislation in a post-Christian society.

Paul went before governors, and not once did he demand that they legislate according to Jewish moral law - he told them about Jesus Christ.

The gov needs to come up with a plan to encourage better parenting - then schools would not need to play nanny. That is how I think the problem of unwilling parents should be tackled. And I don't believe that there are significant numbers of incompetent parents out there - that's what the gov believes. The fact that you are homeschooling gets you nicely out of this - you will not be affected by the gov's proposals so no wonder you are ok with it!

the government this, the government that - if the government is not supposed to be nanny, then what is this about the government 'coming up with a plan to encourage better parenting'?

And what happens in the meantime to those kids whose parents don't teach them - because traditionally our culture has always been quite reticent about dicussing sex. My mother was told not one tiny thing about sexual behaviour or relationships, in school or at home, and she ended up pregnant out of wedlock.

now i see where you are coming from. where i differ is that i think christians should be active in representing christ at all levels of society - and that includes legislative. simply because it helps to stop the rot. Take abortion laws for example, how can we just sit back and say its ok because we are a secular society? This is why certain christian groups exist - to act as pressure groups on the gov. (just as other groups do who have a secular agenda)We operate both on a personal level and also on a societal level.

how else do you propose to improve parenting then kay?
This discussion is about SRE at primary level not SRE entire.

Yes, I gathered that I have friends who believe similar things. Personally, I write letters. Pointless, ignored letters.

TBH, I really think SRE is actually a positive step, in terms of trying to include a broader framework for this kind of education than just the basic 'biology' that presents factoids without setting them in some kind of context. It's not going to be in a Christian setting in a secular school. I've yet to see a method based on Christian teaching - like Silver Ring thing etc. that wasn't just 'law without grace'.

And honestly, abortion is about the hottest potato going, you really are trying to keep them all hot in the thread, aren't you? (And it's not like my views aren't known about this on MN, I do think abortion is different area than personal sexual morality)

I'm still not sure I get the ire, webquack. You seem to be cross because the primary SRE won't be presented from a broadly Christian standpoint.

I agree with you that much of this kind of education needs to be age-appropriate and it will, of neccessity be quite 'broad-brush', but that is the nature of comprehensive state-education, surely?

Look back at doodle2u's comments about the proposals her school received from gov and how they threw them out on the grounds that they were inappropriate. we are still waiting for her to make teh proposals available to us on the internet - somehow.
Yes I know SRE willnot be taught from a christian moral perspective - but then neither will any other subject in the average state school. The trouble is sex is a personal morality issue - different from 'subjects'and to present it in a moral vacuum is like trying to decribe an elephant by only showing the head and ears - but not the rest.
so I think schools should leave SRE well alone - and particularly so at primary level when kiddies should be free to learn about teh world about them and not be harassed by talk of molestation etc.

Where did you get the idea, webquack, that it is your job as a Christian to define the quality of other people's faith? Would that be from the parable of the Pharisee and the publican in the temple?

Kay I dont think you can say sexual morality is different to abortion. you say 'personal' sexual morality as if this somehow means we are FREE as humans to be gay if we wish - and god has no problem with it. This cannot be right. The NT is clear homo. is wrong. It's that simple. Yes, the drivers that lead to someone being homosexual may indeed be complex but the causes of many disorders are also complex. serial killers for example may be what they are because of a complex and toxic mix of factors, but this complex origin does not excuse the wrongness of serial killing.

Actually I joined this website to ask mums to sign a petition (distant memory) not to get embroiled in the hottest most controversial topics around. You mums just got carried away

In my honest opinion, politics, race relations, attitudes towards production and consumerism, the way rhetoric is used are also personal morality questions and yet all those subjects are touched on at school.

i think you'll appreciate cory that the medium of internet chat rooms (which I have never used before btw) is hardly the greatest for communication. There is something surreal about talking to 'people' who have no audible voice no visible face and no real name! It therefore takes a bit of time and effort to discover where people are coming from. For all I know you cory, doodle2, combustible, and sordid gold might all be the same person using different nicknames and different email addresses!! For this reason I will be going back to the 'real' world shortly - but it has been fun in a twisted sort of way.

Cory your point about personal morality in subjects has nothing to do with the point kay and I were discussing. please look at what was actually being said.

Oh, no, do stick around, webquack, this place is abrasive at times, but it's the wide variety of worldviews that makes it interesting. (LOL at the idea that we're all sock puppets. Who has the time! ) Your vacuum argument is quite interesting. I'm not sure it negates the whispers of the playground, though.

I stand by my point about personal sexual morality being a different thing to abortion. There are no lives lost to 'sexual preference' questions. The government's remit extends to protecting life, not to making sure sexual morality conforms to a certain set of rules, which is where I would see the difference.

Cory, I agree with you that all those issues are encompassed by 'personal morality', but I was specifically talking about personal sexual morality.

It may be abrasive and entertaining Kay - but for me it aint the real world! Im happy to speak my mind to people's faces and I dislike British diplomacy which leads to hypocrisy. You never really know where you stand with a brit. too much cloak and dagger.
well the playground whispers are part of the problem which...sigh...is why I will probably home school my kids in the end.
homo may seem different from abortion to you - but who are we as humans to decide this or that sin is less serious in God's eyes? The bottom line for me is that God's word - NB God's word - not webquack's - is clear it aint ok to be gay. In fact I'd say there's nothing gay about being homosexual.

I'm not trying to grade sin - imo, adultery is just as abhorrent as many other things, considering that God uses marriage as a 'picture' of His relationship with us.

I'm just trying to speak to the remit the government has - as opposed to the remit the church has. Anyway, time for me to get some ironing done, so I'll say goodnight. Interesting talking to you.

"The trouble is sex is a personal morality issue - different from 'subjects"

"Cory, I agree with you that all those issues are encompassed by 'personal morality', but I was specifically talking about personal sexual morality."

If all these are encompassed by personal morality, then what is it makes sex so different that it alone cannot be taught at school?

sorry, my apologies to you both; got my quotation markings wrong. Please ignore previous post.

webquack on Tue 13-Jan-09 19:43:19
"Cory your point about personal morality in subjects has nothing to do with the point kay and I were discussing. please look at what was actually being said."

This was the bit I meant to quote.

Why may I not ask a question about the different morality of sex and other subjects if it is not relevant to the point that you were discussing with kayharker?

With all due respect to kayharker (who has put her points very thoughtfully), I asked the same question long before she joined the thread.

And I still want to know why sex in webquack's opinion is unique in having such a personal moral dimension that it cannot be discussed at school. To me, there is the same personal moral dimension in race relations, in how we use language, in how we think of ownership. I see nothing in the Bible to suggest that sex is a uniquely moral or potentially sinful field; as far as I can make out from the commandments and the teachings of Jesus, it is one of many.