Sex education for 10 year olds

[said]

As has been said eloquently by someone else on this thread school lessons are age appropriate and at primary level deal mostly with relationships and appropriate/inappropriate touching. They don't tell children that being gay is acceptable. Rather they stress that there are all types of relationships, that all are deserving of our respect. There may well be children in a class that have two dads or two mums, or no mum and dad, or grandma is bringing them up, or they are adopted. Saying that gayness is being promoted is very far from the truth and says more about the person who thinks that. Very probably they were taught to be fearful of 'shirt lifters' or else they are repressing their own homosexual tendencies because they are 'not normal'. The use of the proper name for things such as parts of the body or sexual orientation actually empower children and help to avoid the s******ing approach to sex that so many of the older generation seem afflicted with.
Sex education at older ages builds on this and may include the actual physical act of sex or not depending on the school. I would say, having taught such lessons, that knowledge is preferrable to ignorance. Unfortunately children of very young ages can be exposed to porn, some of which is quite violent. Wouldn't we rather have children know that sex is/can be and act of love, not one of exploitation and dominance. Knowing doesn't turn them into sex fiends. It might be disconcerting to have your 6 year old come home and talk about penises and vaginas but if you get the vapours it will be you who is teaching them that sex is shameful and dirty not the school.
Edited to say that I did not put asterisks in the word s******ing. The algorythm must have a dirty mind.

If you go down that path, you are opening Pandora's Box. If this was taught to Primary children in KS2/3 - I would ask that you seriously consider the sad James Bulger case! That should have served everyone a warning!

It would appear that you have taught in Primary School only. I don't know what you were instructed to teach in this topic - but I know that even the slightest hint taken the wrong way by such a young child can have a catastrophic outcome. Don't you think that children should be allowed to grow up naturally and find their own way into adulthood without some busybody's interference that may create more problems than it solves?

Children may be of the same yearly age - but they are most definitely not at the same mental age. Some children maybe well ahead of your lesson while others are really not concerned. Whichever - children should only be taught sex education on reaching the average age of puberty. Even then - there will always be a few outliers.

I sincerely hope that you were not instructed to impart this teaching to Primary School children. In Primary School - you may have spent many hours with the same KS4 group. In secondary school - who are those children with most of the time? If you have even so much as hinted at anything it will be expanded upon at a later stage in their lives. For instance, if you told Primary school children that a blue pill is good while a red pill is bad - they may retain that information throughout their lives - but it would be a wrong concept. You cannot focus on particular relationships - you are erroneously directing the child not informing them. You have to be so very careful to remain absolutely neutral with such young children.

The situation has changed with regard to RSE - a new curriculum is being rolled out, to take account of modern life. RSE lessons were introduced in 1989. They were not taught in Primary Schools at all. The issue then was to introduce the concept of sex in Biology lessons describing in detail how procreation is achieved. The aim then was to prevent a high number of unwanted births.

The issues today are somewhat changed, but still include the Biology lessons. At Primary School level, the intention is to ensure that all children feel confident and secure among their peers and family life. Each child should have someone they can confide in, to express themselves and their feelings openly, to understand what their family means to them, to ensure there is someone to give them support. Sex is not necessarily involved, it is left to each school's discretion. However the children are taught how to avoid sexting and child grooming.

Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, says:
"I think the fact that schools are being asked to do this may incentivise children to seek out disturbing content online, which risks introducing children to matters that they may not otherwise have come across before because of the lure of the ‘forbidden fruit’, which inevitably makes it more attractive.
And, of course, it’s not just the mental health elements of the new guidelines that are problematic.
I agree with the 100,000 people who have signed a petition to opt out of the new reforms.
It should be a parent’s role and choice to teach their children relationship and sex education – it should not be a blanket approach which does not take individual needs into consideration. It has no place in a compulsory school curriculum.
It is too much, too young and a form of liberal fascism, imposing particular values on a very wide-ranging and diverse society which should be allowed to foster its own beliefs, especially at such a formative stage."

[local]

If you go down that path, you are opening Pandora's Box. If this was taught to Primary children in KS2/3 - I would ask that you seriously consider the sad James Bulger case! That should have served everyone a warning!

It would appear that you have taught in Primary School only. I don't know what you were instructed to teach in this topic - but I know that even the slightest hint taken the wrong way by such a young child can have a catastrophic outcome. Don't you think that children should be allowed to grow up naturally and find their own way into adulthood without some busybody's interference that may create more problems than it solves?

Children may be of the same yearly age - but they are most definitely not at the same mental age. Some children maybe well ahead of your lesson while others are really not concerned. Whichever - children should only be taught sex education on reaching the average age of puberty. Even then - there will always be a few outliers.

I sincerely hope that you were not instructed to impart this teaching to Primary School children. In Primary School - you may have spent many hours with the same KS4 group. In secondary school - who are those children with most of the time? If you have even so much as hinted at anything it will be expanded upon at a later stage in their lives. For instance, if you told Primary school children that a blue pill is good while a red pill is bad - they may retain that information throughout their lives - but it would be a wrong concept. You cannot focus on particular relationships - you are erroneously directing the child not informing them. You have to be so very careful to remain absolutely neutral with such young children.

The situation has changed with regard to RSE - a new curriculum is being rolled out, to take account of modern life. RSE lessons were introduced in 1989. They were not taught in Primary Schools at all. The issue then was to introduce the concept of sex in Biology lessons describing in detail how procreation is achieved. The aim then was to prevent a high number of unwanted births.

The issues today are somewhat changed, but still include the Biology lessons. At Primary School level, the intention is to ensure that all children feel confident and secure among their peers and family life. Each child should have someone they can confide in, to express themselves and their feelings openly, to understand what their family means to them, to ensure there is someone to give them support. Sex is not necessarily involved, it is left to each school's discretion. However the children are taught how to avoid sexting and child grooming.

Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, says:
"I think the fact that schools are being asked to do this may incentivise children to seek out disturbing content online, which risks introducing children to matters that they may not otherwise have come across before because of the lure of the ‘forbidden fruit’, which inevitably makes it more attractive.
And, of course, it’s not just the mental health elements of the new guidelines that are problematic.
I agree with the 100,000 people who have signed a petition to opt out of the new reforms.


– it should not be a blanket approach which does not take individual needs into consideration. It has no place in a compulsory school curriculum.
It is too much, too young and a form of liberal fascism, imposing particular values on a very wide-ranging and diverse society which should be allowed to foster its own beliefs, especially at such a formative stage."

It should be a parent’s role and choice to teach their children relationship and sex education



After wading through that lot I dropped down the one rather obvious concern,

what happens if your their parent ?

[said]

It should be a parent’s role and choice to teach their children relationship and sex education



After wading through that lot I dropped down the one rather obvious concern,

what happens if your their parent ?

Good point! Threaten the kid to keep their mouths shut!

[Mr Saxon]

Many years ago , back in the distant days before Trisha, Jeremy Kyle, This Morning and Loose Women. There were programmes for schools on ITV and BBC. I seem to recall a couple made either by Grampian or Scottish Television that dealt with this subject and they were for school age kids.
Sometimes regional operators like Granada (that governs North West TV) didn't knock schools programmes off during half term and would only put the kids schedule on over summer, Easter and Christmas so some of these programmes slipped through the net and were watched by kids who were off school. I was a BBC person because all the ITV ones were really boring and I never saw these progs.

[local]

Good point! Threaten the kid to keep their moths shut!

Apart from the typo I just wonder how the threat goes.

Your "child" no doubt in awe of you decides they can't suppress their desires for lesser same-sex Saids what are you going to threaten them with?

[Toodles McGinty]

Boy! Did you of all people REALLY write that? You, who are constantly probing into my identity and who I really AM? I think that this post of yours makes you one hell of a HYPOCRITE!

Couldn't give a monkey's who you are. Or which one of your identities is posting at any one time, Marvin, Joanie, Incel kid. I'll leave that to Birkdale Crankwatch. I certainly don't want to know the details of your intimate life, particularly the identity interested in child rape / murder.

Good point! Threaten the kid to keep their moths shut!

I bet you do. Hence children should be taught from an early age about stranger danger, and that their bodies should not be touched without expressed permission.

[local]

But if you knew who Said was you could warn your children

[joan ofarc]

If you go down that path, you are opening Pandora's Box. If this was taught to Primary children in KS2/3 - I would ask that you seriously consider the sad James Bulger case! That should have served everyone a warning!

It would appear that you have taught in Primary School only. I don't know what you were instructed to teach in this topic - but I know that even the slightest hint taken the wrong way by such a young child can have a catastrophic outcome. Don't you think that children should be allowed to grow up naturally and find their own way into adulthood without some busybody's interference that may create more problems than it solves?

Children may be of the same yearly age - but they are most definitely not at the same mental age. Some children maybe well ahead of your lesson while others are really not concerned. Whichever - children should only be taught sex education on reaching the average age of puberty. Even then - there will always be a few outliers.

I sincerely hope that you were not instructed to impart this teaching to Primary School children. In Primary School - you may have spent many hours with the same KS4 group. In secondary school - who are those children with most of the time? If you have even so much as hinted at anything it will be expanded upon at a later stage in their lives. For instance, if you told Primary school children that a blue pill is good while a red pill is bad - they may retain that information throughout their lives - but it would be a wrong concept. You cannot focus on particular relationships - you are erroneously directing the child not informing them. You have to be so very careful to remain absolutely neutral with such young children.

The situation has changed with regard to RSE - a new curriculum is being rolled out, to take account of modern life. RSE lessons were introduced in 1989. They were not taught in Primary Schools at all. The issue then was to introduce the concept of sex in Biology lessons describing in detail how procreation is achieved. The aim then was to prevent a high number of unwanted births.

The issues today are somewhat changed, but still include the Biology lessons. At Primary School level, the intention is to ensure that all children feel confident and secure among their peers and family life. Each child should have someone they can confide in, to express themselves and their feelings openly, to understand what their family means to them, to ensure there is someone to give them support. Sex is not necessarily involved, it is left to each school's discretion. However the children are taught how to avoid sexting and child grooming.

Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, says:
"I think the fact that schools are being asked to do this may incentivise children to seek out disturbing content online, which risks introducing children to matters that they may not otherwise have come across before because of the lure of the ‘forbidden fruit’, which inevitably makes it more attractive.
And, of course, it’s not just the mental health elements of the new guidelines that are problematic.
I agree with the 100,000 people who have signed a petition to opt out of the new reforms.
It should be a parent’s role and choice to teach their children relationship and sex education – it should not be a blanket approach which does not take individual needs into consideration. It has no place in a compulsory school curriculum.
It is too much, too young and a form of liberal fascism, imposing particular values on a very wide-ranging and diverse society which should be allowed to foster its own beliefs, especially at such a formative stage."

I can't be bothered trying to answer each whacky point made in your post...it's like stream of polluted consciousness . I'll stick to two points...

If you go down that path, you are opening Pandora's Box. If this was taught to Primary children in KS2/3 - I would ask that you seriously consider the sad James Bulger case! That should have served everyone a warning!

I don't know where you have been but relationship education has been with us for quite some time already. Far from creating a nation of 'abnormal' sex addicts we have a generation of young people that are far more emotionally stable and tolerant than older generations. How you draw a line to the boys who killed the little Bulger boy is beyond me. I can tell you this from experience though: the killers were the victims of poor parenting and socio-economic stress. I have no doubt they had been exposed to unsavoury influences far beyond anything age appropriate. If they had had relationship lessons it might have helped them deal with the corrupting influences on their lives. I'm not excusing their acts - don't try and deflect this discussion that way.

It is too much, too young and a form of liberal fascism, imposing particular values on a very wide-ranging and diverse society which should be allowed to foster its own beliefs, especially at such a formative stage."


If you call teaching children to be kind to each other, tolerant of other's beliefs, and aware that there are other gender identities within their own community liberal fascism I am truly amazed that you can function in a British society that has been credited with tolerance and freedoms not available to many around the world. What it comes down to is that people who don't accept those values because of an obsession with one aspect of society are the ones so against relationship education. Children are not incentivised to seek out forbidden fruit. It's all around them anyway and education arms them better than keeping them in ignorance.

I was amused by your attempts to tell me about our education system and curriculum. KS 4 is not primary level for one thing. I'll just point out that, with 45 years teaching experience, I can state definitively that you are talking through your hat.

[donkey22]

Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, says:
"I think the fact that schools are being asked to do this may incentivise children to seek out disturbing content online, which risks introducing children to matters that they may not otherwise have come across before because of the lure of the ‘forbidden fruit’, which inevitably makes it more attractive.
And, of course, it’s not just the mental health elements of the new guidelines that are problematic.
I agree with the 100,000 people who have signed a petition to opt out of the new reforms.
It should be a parent’s role and choice to teach their children relationship and sex education – it should not be a blanket approach which does not take individual needs into consideration. It has no place in a compulsory school curriculum.
It is too much, too young and a form of liberal fascism, imposing particular values on a very wide-ranging and diverse society which should be allowed to foster its own beliefs, especially at such a formative stage."

Campaign for ‘real’ education. This group also opposes the teaching of sociology and politics. It has been critical of anti-racism and anti-sexism campaigns.
Enough said.

[Toodles McGinty]

If you go down that path, you are opening Pandora's Box. If this was taught to Primary children in KS2/3 - I would ask that you seriously consider the sad James Bulger case! That should have served everyone a warning!

How does anyone equate the James Bulger case with teaching children about respecting each other, or changes that will happen to their bodies as they grow?

It's the polar opposite of children being respectful and accepting of others.

If the James Bulger case pops into your mind when considering sex education, there is something very, very wrong. And more proof, if any was needed, that you shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of a child.

[Ceam]

No he does not think it’s ok to be gay, he thinks like I do that people are free to be what they want as long as they don’t bother us with it, he came to this conclusion independently and although it is akin to my stance I think it’s a natural decision for him not to be interested in that sort of thing.
If people want to be gay good luck to them, I will say something here though that may be common knowledge no matter how much denied and controversial it is. I don’t think any father promotes gayness to his son and I don’t think any father really accepts it willingly, they may say they do for peace but it’s not what they wanted when they set out on parenthood.

How nice of you to think for every male on the earth. People don't chose to be gay, Just like you don't chose to be a bigot.

[local]

Gayness is my word of the week,

I am choosing straightness for next week I shall not bend or deviate from my chosen path.

[said]

Apart from the typo I just wonder how the threat goes.

Your "child" no doubt in awe of you decides they can't suppress their desires for lesser same-sex Saids what are you going to threaten them with?

That I am their parent?

Talking of same sex parents - you will not find any studies about how the children fare in such circumstances, one can only wonder why? The children whom I am aware of, had lower educational standards and less confidence in themselves than those from single parent families. A thorough study would reveal if this is generic among such children.

It is all very well claiming political correctness parrot fashion - but surely, a full examination of the facts is very necessary since a number of young people's futures are at stake?

Or does Political Correctness take precedence over children's welfare and deny them the protection of Child Laws?