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

What do you think the governant and schools should do Webquack?

"- it is the existence of the family that counts and teaching children right from wrong. Very unpopular I know. "

How would you intend to teach children right from wrong? What is right and what is wrong?

If it was me, I would SRE all the way through school, but make 90% about relationships and how you treat people. Safer sex is an extension of treating people decently.

I think there are now LESS teenage pregnancies than 20 years ago, but only VERY SLIGHTLY. Mind you, when you think about how sex-saturated our media now is compared to 20 years ago, perhaps that is very impressive!

And rates are higher in the US (a very moral country?), where about 1/3 of women get pregnant before the age of 20.

Laureyfairycake - when I said 'anything goes' I meant that the society we live in is liberal and permissive to the extent that deviant behaviour is tolerated. Speaking out against deviancy has become almost a crime so how can anyone speak the truth about what is right and wrong? Since right and wrong is very unpopular, generally speaking, how can the gov. punt no sex before marriage, for example? No, they can only think of doing more SRE - it is all they know.

But the no-sex-before-marriage approach is the one which has been proven to have the LEAST effectiveness.

Do you think teenagers having sex is deviant?

Hi Pointydog, if speaking the truth alienates people, then let them be alienated. Reallytired - I do not think the schools should do anything (in answer to your question). The solution lies in parents providing a stable family so that children can be raised to be secure and confident. What does that look like? It means teaching children from a young age what is right and what is wrong. (Reaches for tin helmet) sex outside of marriage is wrong. (I can hear the missiles coming my way) sex is meant to bind two people of the opposite sex together for life. That is its purpose. Want proof? Look at the results of sexual promiscuity. I spent 5 years in Botswana - which has the 2nd highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the world. One in four was infected when I was there in the 1990s, now it is 1 in 3. It is a very promiscuous society and the price is death. Now, who would like to dispute that one?

Morning Paper, no sex outside of marriage is not deviant in the sense of abnormal. I was referring to homosexuality, bi-sexuals, cross-dressing etc.

AW webquack, I'm very sorry that you feel this way and wonder how you would feel if your sons were gay?

Webquack - are your views informed by religion?

Morningpaper - when people are presented with the 'no sex before marriage' option it needs to be accompanied by an incentive. The incentive is knowing that following these 'rules' leads to the highest and best in life. and the breaking of these'rules' leads to a less fulfilling existence. Most people are happiest in a monogamous relationship which is life long and which includes offspring. So teaching children that marriage is the only context for sex and teaching them that its purpose is to bind together two people for life so that children can be raised in a happy home, can only be good.

Goodness me I am to implode with the irony that I saved myself for marriage to the husband who turned out to be a bi-sexual trans-sexual...

"The solution lies in parents providing a stable family so that children can be raised to be secure and confident. "

A stable family can come in all shapes and forms. Also a child is better off in a single parent family than having two parents constantly fighting.

Webquack, a lot of children do not live in ideal families and their parents would be the first to admit it. Although many single mothers do a fanastic job of raising kids, it is physically, finanically and emotionally hard on them. No one in their right mind would deliberately set out to become a single parent.

Prehaps relationship lessons should look at how to avoid becoming a single parent. Ie. What to look for in a partner? Ie. thinking how compatible you are with someone. Do you share the same dreams? Do you have similar attitudes to money, jobs and housework? Children need reason rather than religous dogma.

It is unfair to compare SRE in different countries when the way SRE is presented is so different.

Brokenrecord, why do you ask if my views are informed by religion? Of what relevance is that? Consider rather my point, and ask yourself if it is valid.

much as mp needs no help in countering your damaging and nonsensical arguments, webquack, I really must answer this one:

"So teaching children that marriage is the only context for sex and teaching them that its purpose is to bind together two people for life so that children can be raised in a happy home, can only be good."

no, it can only be very very bad. because it is simply untrue. because those who are homosexual are being condemned to a life of celibacy and misery and denied the expression of love. because it judges the marriages of the childless as purposeless.
because it is preaching intolerance, hatred and lack of love.

Morningpaper, if my sons were gay I would consider that I or my husband had made some big mistakes in raising them. To me, being gay is a reaction to dysfunctional childhoods. It is the result of poor parenting - absent fathers, domineering mothers and so it goes on. Homosexuality is a choice and I accept people who are gay as valuable individuals, as valuable as anyone else - but I do not accept and validate their behaviour. I will NEVER allow my sons to be believe being gay is acceptable. But I will always love my sons deeply whatever they do in life.

Maybe the low teenage pregnancy rate in Italy has something to do with the country's overall dangerously low birth rate rather than provision or non-provision of SRE?

I was just curious TBH. There seems to be a bit of a theme to your comments and I wondered where it sprang from.

I don't think you have a valid point I'm afraid, and I wouldn't go near any petition which showed such prejudice towards others. (Re the 'deviant' behaviour.)

Of course we live in an imperfect world - and I am not advocating condemning single parent families (my own parents divorced when I was young) I am saying that there is an ideal (the heterosexual monogamous lifelong relationship) to aim for. The UK is made up of miserable people. Have you noticed? Having spent time in Africa, I can confidently say that British people are miserable. They are miserable because they lead empty unfulfilled lives, devoid of a bigger meaning or purpose. This emptiness is being passed on to the next generation - helped by robbing children of their innocence. I am surprised by the users of this site - nearly every parent I have spoken with about this is opposed to SRE in primary schools. OK folks - I need to go and eat. I look forward to seeing your names on the petition.

You are the only one on this thread who sounds miserable

nearly every parent? do you live a very conservative fundamentalist Christian community?

I am not miserable, my life is neither empty nor unfulfilled. Please reread my posts on my foster daughter - SRE has had nothing but a positive effect on my foster daughter.

You are grossly misinformed and display prejudice and ignorance.

I will not be adding my name to your petition.

yeah we are happy

and we are gettin' LOADS

All the deviant banging cheers me right up

Lauriefairycake - I must dash, but where onearth would you get ideas about fundamentalist Christianity? How about Islamic fundamentalist - or Jew?

mmmm, web. It wasn't so much the telling of many truths that was alienating people. It was all that nonsense about speaking very slowly and clearly. Not a hot move if you want to get people on side.

you think Homosexuality is a choice - your prejudices are making me think you are a fundamentalist.

Such a shame.