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

oh yes I do like a bit of deviant banging

I mean, do you want names on a petition or not?

Why Christianity - are you not displaying your prejudice? Hmm, interesting thought from one so LIBERAL.................

OK, I think I'll switch now from trying to engage with you, to deciding you really simply are the nutter I avoided calling you in my first post.

I think you can confidently look forward to not seeing our signatures on the petition, since most of us are very much in favour of SRE being taught in schools.

You will doubtless take this as evidence of our wickedness, and probably also our support for New Labour, on the basis of your own extremely warped and frankly ust plain odd view of humanity.

Goodbye.

would anybody like a New Labour Cock Ring?

well you see webquack these are question marks?

I asked you a QUESTION dimwit - I did not presume or make assumptions

they are personally tested by Peter Mandelson

Webquack: what you really need is someone to dress you up in leather, grab the lube and the dildos and treat you to the biggest multi-sexual orgy they can find for you. That will make you much happier and stop you fretting about the lives of people who are enjoying themselves more than you are.

(And before anyone accuses me of misogyny: I don't think Webquack has stated his/her gender anywhere on the thread and I don't actually have the slightest interest in whether he/she is male, female, or (as might easily be the case) battling gender dysphoria).

Are you a fundamentalist? Answer the question - I'm not the only one who has asked if your nutjob views are informed by religion.

you are horribly prejudiced - and probably trolling.

By the way I am a Christian - just not one like you dear.

I would love to have this discussion face to face - I wonder if some of you would still be so rude. But it's ok - we all know the truth hurts - I expect you guys to lash out, it's only natural, consider all the people who met a violent death because of what they belived - Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Mahatma Gandhi......

oh yeah, you're just like Gandhi

what an over-inflated sense of your own importance and pride you have.

deluded or troll?

Oh dear.

PMSL MP

Webquack- Are you comparing yourself to Gandhi?
I am getting suspicious now
Must be a wind up

It's only a wind up if you let yourself be wound up.

Webquack, and how about the much longer list of people who were murdered because they were not heterosexual?
ANd no, I wouldn't be as rude to a fuckwit like you face to face. I'd be ruder.

Reallytired on Thu 08-Jan-09 20:05:27
"Why does it matter a child being born out of wedlock?"

I assumed that this would be part of the OP's definition of dissolution of morals. I can assure it is not mine.

and she'd be naked

possibly Morris Dancing

Really, you must be hugely grateful for the blessings of the internet

webquack on Thu 08-Jan-09 20:33:38
"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."

Well the Scandinavian experience seems to suggest that there is no correlation between no-sex-before-marriage attitudes. When I moved to this country from Scandinavia I was astonished to hear of non-religious people who felt they had to get married to start a family. But I was equally astonished by the fact that it was common for teenagers to get pregnant. So it doesn't seem like the two have to go together.

webquack on Thu 08-Jan-09 20:26:20

"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?"

If sex before marriage is a sign of promiscuity, you could argue that Sweden is a promiscuous society. Yet the HIV/Aids rate is very low. Wouldn't have anything to do with sex education, would it now?

Webquack also said that in her experience people in Africa were happier than people here. Make of that what you will.

ONe of the reasons Sweden has a low teenage pregnancy rate is that Sweden has a much more equal society, so girls all feel that there is and can be more to life than being breeding machines.

Sorry, can't agree with you webquack but am not going to be rude.

I'm so glad you have all been thinking about this issue tonight. It's good that you have aired your views even if they are wrong-headed. Goodnight.

Goodnight webquack