11 year old girl set homework asking her to 'define hardcore pornography'

[stumbledin]

Mum fuming as daughter, 11, set homework asking her to 'define hardcore pornography' headline from the Mirror.

Mrs Taylor said if her daughter had searched these phrases online in order to define them, the results would have "destroyed her mind" and "scarred her for life".

"My daughter is still very much a child, we've still got magic elves, her bedroom is done in My Little Pony. She is very innocent and naive.

"She was only in primary school last year living her best life, now she is being asked to search for hardcore pornography.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-fuming-daughter-11-set-22049850

Fucking hell

Yes this seems a rather huge misinterpretation of the new rse requirements!

Not clicking on the daily mail link, sorry. Any other source?

Not clicking on the daily mail link, sorry. Any other source?

It's The Mirror but I suggest you widen your mind a bit. The Mail regularly reports which deal far better with issues affecting women and children than The Guardian or The Independent.

There is an earlier thread about this.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3913941-More-stuff-that-doesnt-happen-Paws-why-are-you-getting-your-knickers-in-a-twist-Chapter-897

It's The Mirror but I suggest you widen your mind a bit

"Widen your mind by reading the Daily Mail". Well that's a new one 😂

I won't read it either. It's utter shite.

I despair at people thinking that one should develop a world view based on a narrow range of approved publications.

Take a look at this link on the PSHE association website.

www.pshe-association.org.uk/system/files/Factsheet%20-%20Transition%20of%20pupil.pdf

I’m going to raise this with the pshe association. I’m a member.

I've got a dd in year 7, I'd be livid if that was sent home or discussed in classes actually, they are very much still young children on the edge of puberty.
Not sure when is the right time for a discussion about porn? Certainly not 11/12.

Her school has set reproduction as a science topic and the kids are embarrassed enough about that.

Wow.

The notion that one particular news source is evil is bogus. For example:

The Daily Mail: good on criticising trans ideology, bad on immigrants

The Guardian: good on Windrush, bad on women’s rights - would probably report this particular story as being “sex positive”.

The BBC: seen as too right wing by the left, seen as too left wing by the right.

The Mirror: people have a problem with Piers Morgan, but then they’ve identified this story as being a major concern.

And so on, and so on. There’s no such thing as good, reliable, more worthy, honourable, socially acceptable news organisations, only articles that are good and articles that aren’t, with good journalists and bad journalists. If people are only willing to click on news websites they approve of, I would say that’s narrow minded. You can argue you don’t want to “fund hate” but it’s worth remembering that the “stop funding hate” group has determined that people standing up for women’s rights comes under that umbrella, so the notion is far from pure.

Earlier thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3913941-More-stuff-that-doesnt-happen-Paws-why-are-you-getting-your-knickers-in-a-twist-Chapter-897

We teach about it in year ten.

IwantT0

From the article:

"Youngsters in years 7, 8 and 9 were set the work for their Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) class, as part of their home-learning during the coronavirus school shut down."

Teachers at Archbishop Sentamu Academy in east Hull asked the 11 to 14-year-olds to "define" pornography, soft pornography, hardcore pornography and transsexual pornography, as well as female genital mutilation, wet dreams, trafficking, male circumcision, breast ironing and more.

There are some pictures of the home work in the article, asking to define, soft porn, hardcore porn...It seems parents began alerting each other about the work on facebook.

It is surprising to see posters spreading doubt as to whether this has happened. Why would someone be motivated to do that?

🤷‍♀️

FFS this kind of stuff really worries me! My DC aren’t at secondary yet, I bloody hope things have improved in terms of what schools think is acceptable to teach our kids by the time they are.

Sorry about the earlier thread, but how would anybody searching, which I did, ever think that that title was anything to do with the story.

It might be a bit boring, but could help make threads easy to find and join in with if the titles weren't some sort of subliminal insider code!

Not going to apologise for the Mirror link. We are stuck with the fact that the papers that are presumed to be "better" are equally biased and as much about news as the telly tubbies. ie papers present the information that they think forwards their political objectives, as news. Each time I read an article from the Times questioning the trans narrative I have to stop myself from puking knowing that the pay some of the most rabid, ill thinking men in the media.

I did find the link to the schools online learning resources but it looks like you need a code to actually access the lessons plans sentamu.com/lesson-resources/

Widen your mind by reading the Daily Mail". Well that's a new one

I won't read it either. It's utter shite

How do you know what it's like if you never read it?

The Mail and The Mail on Sunday pick up on stories affecting women and children which never see the light of day in The Guardian.

I despair at people thinking that one should develop a world view based on a narrow range of approved publications

Indeed- and making a virtue of having a narrow , closed mind.

(I couldn’t find the words...)

Very well said NotBadConsidering

It is surprising to see posters spreading doubt as to whether this has happened.

Yes, and how surprising that the school & principle would then apologise for this happening.
Maybe if people read the article they would have known that...