Sex education for 10 year olds

[roving-eye]

My grandson has come home from school and told his mum he has had a lesson about wet dreams and erections! I find this appalling... he is just a kid .

[Lamparilla]

What's appalling about dreaming about going swimming or watching a skyscraper being built?

[greenmachine]

My grandson has come home from school and told his mum he has had a lesson about wet dreams and erections! I find this appalling... he is just a kid .

Post removed. The use of such offensive terms is unacceptable on the forum

[gsgsgs]

Post now removed by Admin.

The offensive terms used in your opening statement clearly highlight which phobic you are!

[salus.populi]

My grandson has come home from school and told his mum he has had a lesson about wet dreams and erections! I find this appalling... he is just a kid .

10?
40 years ago I had sex education at age 11.
It's hardly a dramatic and rapid slide.

[Alikado]

10?
40 years ago I had sex education at age 11.
It's hardly a dramatic and rapid slide.

They start it long before then nowadays about the age of 7 or 8 I believe.

[greenmachine]

The offensive terms used in your opening statement clearly highlight which phobic you are!

I am not phobic at all. But the abnormal minorities are calling the shots. When I was a kid you would see men with missing fingers. They were not in the majority. So they were not the normal. They were abnormal. The English language is easy to understand if its your first language. Anything not majority is NOT normal. So MUST be abnormal.

[gsgsgs]

I am not phobic at all. But the abnormal minorities are calling the shots. When I was a kid you would see men with missing fingers. They were not in the majority. So they were not the normal. They were abnormal. The English language is easy to understand if its your first language. Anything not majority is NOT normal. So MUST be abnormal.

You choose to use terms that are offensive, we are in the 2020's not the 1970's would you use the N word?

You now refer to "abnormal minorities" again offensive.

The English language is easy to understand and evolves, words & terms once in use are no longer acceptable because they have been taken by certain groups to cause offence & hatred.

The thread is about sex education yet you seem to want to take it off topic, where does the OP suggest that same sex relationships were discussed?

[said]

10?
40 years ago I had sex education at age 11.
It's hardly a dramatic and rapid slide.

That's odd? The youngest I heard about was 13 years - even that was too young.

[Toodles McGinty]

There is an agenda set by the sodomites and rug munchers. The minoritys now try to call the shots. Let children enjoy their innocence. No one dare question them for fear of being called phobic.

Wow.

That's about as offensive as it gets.

So teaching a 10 year old about what is going to happen to his body in the very near future, is an agenda set by [Original post now deleted]

I'd say then, that the [Original post now deleted] are very sensible. Just like it would be sensible to tell a 10 year old girl what going to happen to her body.

Or perhaps in your dark, narrow mind, a kid should just wake up to what would be the horror of a wet dream or a period, and wonder what the hell is happening to them. Don't tell them that such things are perfectly natural. Don't tell them there isn't something wrong if it happens to them.

I'd hate my kids to have ever felt somehow different, frightened or abnormal because something totally normal happened. They understood at the age of 10 that changes were imminent. They weren't scared or embarrassed.

[Original post now deleted]Might have relaxed you a little rather than being the revolting bigot you obviously are.


Since the original post and offensive words have now been deleted, they have also been removed from your response.

[said]

You choose to use terms that are offensive, we are in the 2020's not the 1970's would you use the N word?

You now refer to "abnormal minorities" again offensive.

The English language is easy to understand and evolves, words & terms once in use are no longer acceptable because they have been taken by certain groups to cause offence & hatred.

The thread is about sex education yet you seem to want to take it off topic, where does the OP suggest that same sex relationships were discussed?

We ARE allowed to discuss details relating to minorities under the framework of the Rabat Plan of Action relating to the Freedom of Speech. Under this criteria, can you explain which represents an offence in the expression as given? The context is acceptable, in that one form of sexual teaching could lead to others. The poster has not given any indication of his/her own persuasion - you have immediately assumed without cause or reason for doing so. The intent is to inform not to create offence, the fact you feel offended is based on one word entirely and is evidently biased, since you have already shown you make assumptions frivolously.

Sex education to very young children should be discouraged for the very simple reason that once an idea is implanted into a child's mind, they are then encouraged to experiment with that idea. This leads to a very dangerous paradox - for if that young child then experiments on another young child - they are then placed under the care of a psychologist, and this has legal implications through no fault of their own. Would you teach a ten year old how to set off fireworks?

Sex education should only be taught to secondary level students, at or just beyond puberty. Even then not all children are at the same level. It should involve just sex, how the biological process works and the results of such relationship in order to illustrate how the human race exists. Sex is a description of procreation use to inform young people that to have sex outside of marriage or when underage - can lead to poverty and hardship. That is the intention of sex education.

If, as the poster alludes, such education may include a description of gratification from alternative forms of emotional attraction - this should not be taught as a school lesson in sex. Sex is primarily for procreation - alternative forms of emotion do not lead to unwanted children, and is therefore unnecessary.

Under the 1984 Child Act, absolute priority is given to the Health and Well being of a child. Health includes mental and physical. If a very young child is exposed to alternative means of physical attraction in addition to sex, the child will obviously become confused - this is in breach of the Child Act. If a young child is informed in this manner and subsequently is approached by a pedophile - the child will consider that such acts are quite natural. Again in Breach of the Child Act.

A child has human rights too. A child should be allowed to live as a child first, and then be taught about procreation after puberty. Anything other than this is pure ignorance and in breach of the law.

[local]

Children having some knowledge of what's happening and going to happen is perfectly reasonable.

Why this huge hangup over sex.

[Graeme1978]

My grandson has come home from school and told his mum he has had a lesson about wet dreams and erections! I find this appalling... he is just a kid .

Would you rather they weren’t told in an informed manner, and when they wondered about this stuff they just searched the Internet instead?

I know which I’d prefer. It’s been taught in schools for decades.

[said]

Children having some knowledge of what's happening and going to happen is perfectly reasonable.

Why this huge hangup over sex.

In this day and age I doubt if any young people are not aware! It is not a hang up on sex. The idea came about because of a high number of unwanted pregnancies among under seventeens back, I think, in the nineties. The idea was a very practical one at the time - but it has now been hijacked and used for political tick boxes.

[gsgsgs]

We ARE allowed to discuss details relating to minorities under the framework of the Rabat Plan of Action relating to the Freedom of Speech. Under this criteria, can you explain which represents an offence in the expression as given? The context is acceptable, in that one form of sexual teaching could lead to others. The poster has not given any indication of his/her own persuasion - you have immediately assumed without cause or reason for doing so. The intent is to inform not to create offence, the fact you feel offended is based on one word entirely and is evidently biased, since you have already shown you make assumptions frivolously.

Sex education to very young children should be discouraged for the very simple reason that once an idea is implanted into a child's mind, they are then encouraged to experiment with that idea. This leads to a very dangerous paradox - for if that young child then experiments on another young child - they are then placed under the care of a psychologist, and this has legal implications through no fault of their own. Would you teach a ten year old how to set off fireworks?

Sex education should only be taught to secondary level students, at or just beyond puberty. Even then not all children are at the same level. It should involve just sex, how the biological process works and the results of such relationship in order to illustrate how the human race exists. Sex is a description of procreation use to inform young people that to have sex outside of marriage or when underage - can lead to poverty and hardship. That is the intention of sex education.

If, as the poster alludes, such education may include a description of gratification from alternative forms of emotional attraction - this should not be taught as a school lesson in sex. Sex is primarily for procreation - alternative forms of emotion do not lead to unwanted children, and is therefore unnecessary.

Under the 1984 Child Act, absolute priority is given to the Health and Well being of a child. Health includes mental and physical. If a very young child is exposed to alternative means of physical attraction in addition to sex, the child will obviously become confused - this is in breach of the Child Act. If a young child is informed in this manner and subsequently is approached by a pedophile - the child will consider that such acts are quite natural. Again in Breach of the Child Act.

A child has human rights too. A child should be allowed to live as a child first, and then be taught about procreation after puberty. Anything other than this is pure ignorance and in breach of the law.

What are you wittering on about now?

The post was not acceptable under any circumstances as it used extremely offensive terms, the below is evidence of that.

Post removed. The use of such offensive terms is unacceptable on the forum

I made no assumptions, when you are prepared to use such terms out of context to the thread it is evidence enough about the beliefs of the poster, even if it was in context to the thread it would not have been acceptable.

We are lucky enough to live in a society with freedom of speech, but to refer to someone's sexual orientation as abnormal is offensive and crosses the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable.