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

Webquack

As a parent I have no problem with my ds being taught about sex and relationships. Of course I will talk to him about these things at home at an appropriate age, and answer his questions honestly. However, there is no harm in him learning about them at school, in a class environment, and finding out about the diverse views of other people outside his immediate family.

As regards homosexuality, as far as I'm concerned some people are gay, some aren't. So what? If my ds turns out to be gay, it won't make me feel any differently about him or affect our relationship in any way. I would hate to be growing up in your household, being told that "gay is wrong and unacceptable". How will your children feel if they are gay and are faced with such prejudice from their own parents?

Teenage pregnancies are high in this country, fair point. But this is not down to sex education - usually the reverse is true. My local paper recently ran a survey of teenage mums in the area. The huge majority said that they wished they had had more sex education, to help them realise the seriousness and responsibility of parenthood, and the consequences of having unprotected sex as an emotionally immature teenager. There are still myths going around like "you can't get pregnant if you're standing up/on your period/it's the first time". Young people need to know the truth, the risks and the facts.

Children and teenagers need to be taught that sex can have many emotional issues tied up with it, and that they need to be safe, feel able to say no to peer pressure, and not be rushed into things that they feel uncomfortable with. It's in the nature of young people to experiment - I would rather that my teenager was experimenting armed with knowledge and confidence, rather than embarking on a sexual relationship feeling that it is wrong, dirty and possibly not having the knowledge to protect themselves.

I don't know if you are a troll or not, but if you are genuine, I think you will find that your views are very much in the minority, both on Mumsnet and in the wider world.

you sound like someones brainwashed you

In SRE the actual sex is a very small part of what is taught. After all they are taught that bit in science lessons (which you cant opt out of). The focus is on all the other bits of relationships. The teacher should write to parents informing them before hand what is going ot be taught and inviting comments etc as well as encouraging people at home to talk about these topic areas at teh same time and/or warnign them questions might be asked.

Lol at image of teacher quaking - you have no idea do you?

Dd aready knows the parts of her body (5) so there will be no surprises for her her there. Personally I'd rather she learnt it from me and school rather than a porno mag/internet site/boyfriend/friend when she is older.

OP is clearly barmy.

I don't normally post comments like this because they're annoying to those who are enjoying the debate, but...

seriously...

by continuing to debate with her, you're only doing what webquack wants (ie keeping her thread in active convos so that silent lurking bigots can sign her petition). I certainly don't see any evidence that anyone is going to change her mind.

Is there any chance that we could all agree to not post any more?

I'm almost tempted to bump this out of existence - and I hate it when people do that.

There was recently a huge survey done about what kids want ot be taught at school and a huge amount of them said more sex education.

I agree with MP

Why is sex education a problem for you, OP? Surely it is better for children to be well informed?

You are making a mistake by linking teenage pregnancy rates to sex education. IMO teenage pregnancy rates are due to a number of different issues - inequality, lack of education, the way benefits work in the UK, lots of stuff.

webquack on Fri 09-Jan-09 22:43:39
" This and also the sexual health clinics which the gov. wants to open in every secondary school and college are part of a social experiment - your children will be their guinea pigs. "

This experiment has already been carried out in Sweden. It has been successful. That is why I would like to see the same facilities introduced here.

Fyi the many Swedish teenagers I have met and spoken to are not obsessed about sex, indeed far less so than many of their English counterparts. They see sex as something positive, but not something they want to get in the way of the other positive things in life, such as finding a job, having a good family life and making a contribution to society.

I have never heard of a Swedish teenager deliberately getting pregnant to access housing or to "get someone to love me"- when I tell them that this happens in the UK they stare at me in disbelief. As I said before, the only teen I ever knew to get pregnant was the strictly moral Baptist pastor's daughter. Presumably, she was the only one who did not feel confident enough to ask about contraception.

policywonk has a point- but I think it's unlikely that Mumsnetters are going to be queuing up to sign her petition.

Why do you want to be a killjoy policywonk? Let the girls have some fun - after all what else are they going to discuss - environmentally friendly knickers and school uniforms? (yawn)

But, hey, there is nothing else I want to say. I have said it all - in answer to your comments. Thank you. Goodbye.

I'm sure you will be back webquack.

Are you aware that your child might not live up to your ideals.

I just wonder webquack what you would do if you found out your son or daughter had caught a teenage STD and worst still spread the STD because they were too scared to tell you.

If it was my child then I would prefer that they went behind my back, got treated for an STD without my knowledge than died or in someways worst caused the death of someone else. If clinics in schools help a child in horrible situation of being pregnant, or prevent an STD then it does not bother me.

I will love my children whatever silly mistakes they make in life. However I can understand (but maybe a bit saddened) if they are too scared to ask me for help. The main thing is that they get that sort of help.

if i come across any good info - i will post it here. This is an article I downloaded this evening. Not my words:

Sexual health clinics offering pregnancy tests and the morning-after pill should be available in every secondary school, an influential group has told the Government.

This proposal from the Sex Education Forum (SEF) ? which has alarmed family campaigners ? comes despite its own admission that there is a ?lack of research evidence? showing that school-based clinics are effective.

If the SEF?s suggestion was put into practice, it would allow children as young as eleven to access sexual health services at school, with no need for their parents to be informed.

Currently, almost one in three secondary schools offers on-site sexual health services. This means that up to a million girls already have access to the morning-after pill at school.

Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show that more than 1,000 morning-after pills were given out by such clinics in Oxfordshire over the last six years.

Yet despite the existence of the clinics, teenage pregnancy rates in the county continued to rise over the same period.

David Paton, professor of economics at Nottingham University?s Business School, commented on the issue last year: ?Pretty much all the research on school-based family planning clinics suggests they have little or no impact on teenage pregnancy rates.

?There is a possibility that such services change the behaviour of some young people and may increase risk-taking sexual behaviour.?

The Government announced in October that sex education will become mandatory from ages five to 16, a controversial measure that was heavily lobbied for by groups including the SEF.

The Government commissioned the SEF?s investigation of sexual health clinics, and children?s minister Beverley Hughes has indicated its support for on-site services in schools.

She said: ?The Government supports the provision of on-site services where schools have identified a need and where the scope of the service has been agreed by the school?s governing body following consultation with parents.

?On-site services provide young people with swift and easy access to health advice that survey evidence suggests they are reluctant to access through GPs or clinics.?

But Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said: ?Sexual health clinics on school premises send out the message that it is normal for schoolchildren to engage in sexual activity.

?Confidential clinics in schools are part of a mix that is removing the restraints which previously limited underage sexual activity.

?There is no evidence that school clinics result in lower teenage conception rates. Instead, they encourage some teenagers to become sexually active when they would not otherwise have done so.

?The fact that these clinics keep parents in the dark is also a great concern. Confidentiality policies drive a wedge between parents and children and expose young people to the risk of abuse and disease.?

seems I am not the only "nutter" as you would say

From the Daily Mail no doubt?

You're still a nutter!

The trouble is that it is headline grabbing news of the world crap isn't it the title of this thread. WHat is talked at this age is not sex itself but SRE at this age is about relationships (with all sorts of people -friends etc), bullying, peer pressure etc etc. It is unecessary to teach a 5 year old about sex.

People jump on SRE for this age and think teachers are instructing 5 years old how to have sex.

We have been trying for the last 9 pages to tell webquack that early sex education is not about teaching youngsters to have sex. It. Is. Not. Sinking. In.

And another (Not The Daily Mail) but it was a good guess unfit - one.

"Teenage pregnancy rates in England and Wales have gone up, suggesting that a decade of Government initiatives like free condoms and more sex education have not helped.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has reported a 2.7 per cent rise in the rate last year.

There were 42 conceptions for every 1,000 girls aged 15-17 in the 12 months to September 2007.

This figure is expected to go up still further as the last three months of the year traditionally bring the highest pregnancy rates.

This means that 2007?s figures are likely to show the first major jump in teenage conceptions in a decade.

This is an embarrassing blow to the Government, who in 1998 pledged to halve the under-18 conception rate by 2010.

But instead Britain currently has the highest teenage pregnancy levels in Europe.

Jill Kirby of the think tank Centre for Policy Studies said: ?It is very worrying, given teenage pregnancy rates are already ahead of those in the rest of Europe, that the slight decline [in 2006] has now gone into reverse.?

She added: ?We need a new policy of parental consultation, limited access to contraceptives and a climate in which sexual activity among teenagers is discouraged rather than encouraged.?

As ministers panic, commentators say the figures have been the driving force behind recent increased efforts to intensify sex education and boost the widespread availability of contraception.

Last week the Department of Health announced it will allow pharmacists to give out the contraceptive pill without a doctor?s assessment.

The announcement came shortly after the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), one of Britain?s leading abortion providers, launched an advertising campaign to encourage women and young girls to stock up on the morning-after pill over Christmas.

Critics warn the scheme will encourage women and even young girls to engage in casual sex.

In October Schools Minister Jim Knight sparked controversy for proposing that under-11s should be given compulsory sex education and suggesting parents may lose their right to withdraw their children"

The most common time to concieve for teenagers is about 4.30 pm.

And definitely NOT the News of The World - gasp - I usu read The Times and Telegraph.

Are you going to reference these insightful articles?
They're not from today's Telegraph.

And one more:

"Schools minister Jim Knight has implied as long as children remember their sex education lessons he doesn?t mind if they forget what they learn in maths and history.

Mr Knight was speaking at a Westminster Hall debate on new plans for compulsory sex and relationships education (SRE) for children as young as five.

Defending the Government?s plans, Mr Knight said: ?If we get it right, the lessons learned at school will stay with them for the rest of their lives.?

He said that although geometry ?and the dates of the English civil war may fade from memory, the knowledge of how to practise safe sex will not.?

However, other MPs said that schools are already failing to teach pupils in other areas, and should not be expected to cover more SRE as well.

Philip Davies, the MP who secured the debate, said: ?Surely, the Government should concentrate on ensuring that people can read and write when they leave school, rather than taking every opportunity to fill their heads with sex education, which is clearly making no difference whatever.?

Mr Davies also attacked Mr Knight?s claim that there is ?strong international evidence? for the success of ?comprehensive SRE? in lowering teenage pregnancy.

Ministers have often linked low teenage pregnancy levels in the Netherlands with its more explicit approach to SRE.

But Mr Davies accused the Government of ?cherry-picking? evidence from other countries to support its argument.

He pointed out that like the Netherlands, Italy also has low rates of teenage pregnancy, and provides ?almost no sex education in its schools?.

He said that what both countries shared was not sex education but tighter family structures, low divorce rates, and a far smaller proportion of lone parent families.

Mr Davies told MPs: ?Many people feel that the more sex education we have had, the more teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies we have had.

?The answer to that problem is not even more sex education, but less.

?We have been trying this for 20 or 30 years. We might think that somebody would have said, at some point, ?Hold on a minute, this is not working.??

Am I the only one who can't be arsed to read all of webquack's quotes?

Gee whizz Hercules - don't you read? No wonder some of you lovely mums have only considered one side of the argument.

No!