"Sex work is rewarding, pupils told by education providers."

[ResisterRex]

In today's Times:

Sex work is rewarding, pupils told by education providers.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/35cd493a-fee1-11ec-88db-ae1b6b9bdd3e?shareToken=9c11ec9640b2734f2d77adc7f059f54dd_

I think we are all familiar with these "education providers" but even so, it's another shocker. It's already been picked up by the Mail:

School children are told prostitution is a 'rewarding job' by sex education providers who promote 'kinks' to pupils including flogging, beating and locking people up in a cage

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10996893/Children-told-prostitution-rewarding-job-sex-education-providers-promote-kinks.html

And yes, missing out the legal ramifications around consent is pretty massive.

👏👏👏

Is that right, that it has that long a history? So the approved materials go back to pre-2010?

I think decentralising education has a clear pro and con in the specific case of RSE. Imagine the Labour-approved materials now. Presumably they'd include "safe auto-asphyxiation". Obviously under the Tories it's not exactly been better but at least we can highlight it.

Frankly it all needs to be basic stuff, easily teachable, in line with the law and guided by actual experts on what is age appropriate. Experts who are happy to put their name to it.

This would ensure some sense and transparency, and remove the "market" for all this kink nonsense which does not adhere to the most basic law.

Not too sure about all of this being the problem of a particular political party. Why? Because I had sex education at school when Blair was PM and we had external groups come in for one-off plays etc about sex, so there's always been scope for un-vetted views and ideas to come in. We also learnt about homosexuality when Section 28 was still enforced.

Obviously out-sourcing is the problem for all of this, and as we've seen with Stonewall (who offer training to corporations), any external provider will cause problems.

Yes the problem will be for when schools have had to provide more and more sex education (which became mandatory under the Tories) and the easiest way to meet that need is to bring in an external provider.

But don't think that before the Tories elements of sex education was not provided by third parties.

I think decentralising education has a clear pro and con in the specific case of RSE. Imagine the Labour-approved materials now. Presumably they'd include "safe auto-asphyxiation". Obviously under the Tories it's not exactly been better but at least we can highlight it.

This is a point I've been mulling over a lot.

This has happened in wales. Not that specific point but not far off. They've enshrined the ideology in their curriculum. Ironically the rest of the curriculum is organised around what Labour created with their dying breath, which was this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233814187Wassitrightttoabandonnthecreativeecurriculum

Does anyone know whether this person provides lessons on how girls can say no to being asked to 'send nudes', pressured to have anal sex, etc. how pornography is shaping what boys think is acceptable, when it isn't.

Is he telling boys not to do these things ?

But don't think that before the Tories elements of sex education was not provided by third parties.

You are right, as I've said.

But education wasn't up for grabs by as many private companies and charities as it is now. LEAs and the gov itself had content provided for schools to teach. LEAs, have been dismantled and private companies have sprung up. Eg, an LEA ict advisor who taught me went off and set up his own company for schools to buy in directly. That's Tory policy. The local LEA art advisor gave up (I think was also demoted) as no one came to his sessions as everyone uses twinkl.

Health visitors and school nurses had a lot more input into schools than they do now.

There were books and schemes you could buy (particularly music which is v hard to teach if you are non specialist primary and needed cds of music) but for the most part you could use what the gov provided.

It wasn't perfect. And definitely would have had to evolve. And I've no idea what it would have looked like under the curriculum they tried to bring out.

I'm commenting specifically on why schools buy in outside people and schemes. They're doing it for most subjects, including literacy (eg read write ink.) even that was all government led previously.

We've just signed up to a massive maths scheme which we've all said was basically the national numeracy strategy file re booted online.

EDI would have probably evolved anyway and yes, could have been an issue of Labour had grabbed it as they have out of power. As shown in wales.

I've no idea if this twitter thread is true though... twitter.com/lascapigliata8/status/1546070372314931201?s=21&t=YRqMUAeggCcK5LyNWqH4bQ

Need to also note that in the age of austerity, a lot of charities and museums have to demonstrate their educational value in order to secure that funding.

I know a circus group that got funding to deliver a literacy themed circus workshop for free to schools. It had to be literacy themed.

But does the organisation/ charity funding these have any idea of safeguarding? That's why it rests with the schools. But the schools don't always know either.

Obviously publicly funded museums feel a lot of pressure.

Quite

But don't think that before the Tories elements of sex education was not provided by third parties

The difference is that schools and unions and the DfE had not been captured by queer theory celebrating groups wanting to promote porn and fetishes to children so there were levels of scrutiny and accountability.

I recall many years ago a school nurse being sacked for openly answering a primary child's question in a sex ed lesson (think the question was about anal sex?) Instead of filtering / screening questions as SRE teachers do, she answered directly and her response was deemed to be age inappropriate for such young children.

This is multi factorial; my point is how the tories decentralised things.

As said by pp, Labour could have been captured and then it would all be centralised.

However, scrutiny and safeguarding from above, within the structures that have now been reduced, may have meant it didn't go so bonkers as a rainbow glitter fest free for all.

The tories hastily added guidance after issues started to alight and are now hastily thinking that they have to write the materials themselves.

Not all leas are the same; I'm lucky to still be in one where there's a level of central control. I've been so puzzled by what's happening elsewhere and hadn't realised different areas can be different. For example, we do have an LEA employed teacher who teaches sex Ed to send pupils (very well, overseen by safeguarding understanding) and has done so for a good 10 years.

A lot of this should be parental responsibilities rather than school's responsibilities. School time is precious & children should learn real things!

The Times link you posted is broken btw

The DM article is from June 2022. I vaguely remember someone posting it at the time re the topic of sex education in school. If it's what I'm thinking of I believe there was some misinformation/misunderstanding- the provider of the sex education also has a website with education aimed at a more mature audience, which people were incorrectly stating children in school's were being taught.

I just realised the OP is from mid 2022. Zombie thread...

Oh no Marg! Yes, you already defended prostitution earlier in the original thread in 2022 (see page 1)! So your work here was already done! 😂 No need for more promoting of sexwork here!

Thanks for bumping this Marg. Always worth being reminded of the dodgy adults pushing prostitution at children.
Here's another share token for you so you can check out who shouldn't be anywhere near children:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/35cd493a-fee1-11ec-88db-ae1b6b9bdd3e?shareToken=2c61249048dac38af5d6c68ff9dd9899

Just quoting a bit of that in detail, just so we’re all aware of the stuff Pie is defending:

Providers of sex education in schools are teaching children that prostitution is a “rewarding job” and failed to advise a 14-year-old girl having sex with a 16-year-old boy that it was illegal.

Outside organisations teaching children about sex also promote “kinks” such as being locked in a cage, flogged, caned, beaten and slapped in the face, The Times has found.

One organisation encouraged pupils to demonstrate where they like to touch themselves sexually, in a practise criticised as “sex abuse” by campaigners.

Another provider, an LGBT+ youth charity called the Proud Trust, produces resources asking children aged seven to 11 whether they are “planet boy, planet girl, planet non-binary”.

Why is this perv so keen to play down the risk of pregnancy? He's improperly using studies involving 42 year-old women to counsel teen girls on their likelihood of conceiving. Against this sort of bro-science, it's going to be even harder for teenage girls to resist the pressure to have unprotected sex.

Also, no discussion of the social, emotional and physical impact of teen pregnancy, just snooty remarks about fuddy-duddies who foolishly think 'its the worst thing in the world'.

The male privilege is palpable.

This is fucking outrageous! WHO signs off this disaster?

A zombie, but always instructive to see how quickly - each time - certain posters are to rush to the defence of groomers.

This.

What’s needed in the short term is for schools to be forbidden from outsourcing sex education, with fines if they do so.

If a teacher isn’t competent to do teach a short lesson on sex ed then they should leave the profession.

Yes I know teaching sex ed is embarrassing. But if you outsource it, you invite perverts into schools and pay them taxpayer money for it. At a time when schools are desperate for money. It’s insane.

Except that, as has already been established, this wasn't actually taught in the classroom which the tabloids are trying to imply.

It is content on their website, which isn't meant for children.

Tabloids lie and create false scandal. Who would have thought it?

"It is content on their website, which isn't meant for children".

Nope - if you want to talk to other people's children about sex then it is incumbent on you as an organisation or individual to ensure that your social media contains nothing age inappropriate. You are a role model as an adult working with children.
Otherwise stick to working with consenting adults. Children are not available for every kinkster, predator and fetishist to gaslight.

I understand the material on their website was clearly marked as not suitable for children.