Thanks Cath.
I really dont get why parents object to their children learning about their bodies and sex. I was always amazed when I was a school governor of an upper school that sex education was one of the very few subjects that parents got really uppity about.

I also believed that it was part of a parents job to have those sort of talks with kids, (I did with my son) and way before 15!

Just in case anyone is confused. The UK Government only makes the rules about education in England. Even on the blogs, a little accuracy would be useful.

Que anti abotionist’s complaining about sex education in 5–4–3–2–1…..

What I find slightly perplexing is the idea that a parent could withdraw a 15 year old from sex education classes.

Surely, if an adolescent is old enough to pass the Gillick test then it should be their decision, not that of their parent(s).

Education = Good. Ignorance = Bad. It really is that simple.

In the US, the teen pregnancy and STD rates among teenagers from Christian and social-conservative communities are way higher than in liberal ones; the divorce rate in the Bible Belt is also higher than on the liberal East Coast. Does anyone happen to know of any comparable statistics for the UK? Would be funny if it turned out that the Fail’s readership is in fact the driving engine of the “Broken Britain” they like to wail about…

@ oldnat – I am confused by your comment – clearly the Guardian article that Cath links to says this plan covers England, but seriously – I know that Wales follows the same National Curriculum, and I strongly assume that Wales and Scotland do too. No idea about NI.

I’d like to echo Msvirago in saying that sex education is part of a parents job. It is much easier to take opportunities when they happen naturally to ‘talk about sex’ and I feel really sorry for children whose parents can’t be bothered to do this.

Ridiculous that parents can veto sex education until 15. If they can’t be bothered to do it then schools have to.

15? Exactly how many years too late is that, then?

Although must confess I’m glad my older monkey is only 6, so the serious conversations are still a little way off yet…

I take the principle that if a child is old enough to ask they are old enough to be given honest answers.

Many parents will obviously be ashamed that their children don’t trust them enough to be the first point of call for information, and this does reflect on their relationships, but that is no reason to impose restrictions on the free flow of reliable impartial information which negatively affects a young person’s growing maturity.

The other half of the sex education equation is parenting education which should be given on an ongoing basis to adults who have children, so that they have the skills to build those healthy relationships where communication and trust is at the heart of the supportive family.

It is no good arguing against parents who feel left in the wilderness about how their childrens behaviour is a manifestation of their own attitudes and then get upset with the result.

“In fact I think sex education, or PSHE (or is it PSHEE now?) should be compulsory for all pupils, including those still at primary school.”

Why do you think that you or anyone else should have the power to decide what will be compulsorily taught in every school in the country? Strikes me as the epitome of state planning to me, which usually produces bad unintended consequences.

I support people being educated about sex. I don’t think it is Westminster’s role to determine how and when.

What would be really good, would be if there was a compulsory exam, and parents can choose whether to teach the child themselves, or let them do the classes, but ignorance is not an option.

I think also if the exact content was known, it would be harder for the scare-mongers to object to it.

Loving the idea of daily mail readers being broken britain. Tempted to look into that.

And for today’s most hysterical headline, here’s the Express in “Sex and drugs lessons at age 5″ shocker.

According to Express readers it’s “Time to get together and fight these deviants who are out to destroy our children”, it’s the “institutionalised sexual abuse of children”, oh, and it’s also Marxist apparently.

There will, I think, always be a significant number of women who resent their children growing up. In the first place, it reminds them that they themselves are ageing; in the second place, it tells them tat the only activity from which they have ever drawn self-esteem – motherhood – is coming to a close. Such women provide a ready market for irresponsible attitudes towards sex.

I say women because the equivalent male irresponsibility is of course simply to run away from child-rearing tasks altogether.

It’s exactly the same as the drugs problem: it’s so much easier to excoriate the supplier than it is to address the issue of why the demand exists in the first place.

Mike:

I’m really not sure that men and women are that different in their attitudes other than in the sense that men are often rather more hypocritical about things, i.e. relaxed about their sons ’sowing their wild oats’ but obsessively overprotective of their daughters.

Tabloid hysteria about this sort of thing is just so hypocritical. The Mail et al are just the sort to run a “save our kids from sex indoctrination!!!” piece alongside paparatzi pictures of some celeb’s 15 year old daughter lying on a beach with a caption soimething like “she’s a growing girl, eh fellas?”

Also, the amount of myths along the lines of “you can’t get pregnant the first time” that are actually believed by teenagers cannot be underestimated.

Wow, Mike, you’ve pretty much nailed every sexist parenting stereotype in the book with that comment! Did you plan it? Cause really, it couldn’t have been better if you’d planned it. Seriously, it’s a work of art.

No, wait, I know: it could only have been improved by trotting out the shotgun-wielding father of a teenage daughter to prove how irresponsible fathers are, and the out on the town ladette mom to show how women ar ethese stick in the mud control freaks. Then it would be perfect.

Although yeah, like Unity says, there are fewer ugly lables about parents of sons than those of daughters (the green meany mother in law is about it). Could be because our society is less invested in controlling the sexuality of boys than that of girls, but then again nah – that would just be feminist paranoia, wouldn’t it? After all, if that were the case, you’d see people up in arms about life saving vaccination for girls who may be sexually active, wouldn’t you?

Oh, wait.

[16] No case, abuse plaintiff’s attorney.

And yes, (male-dominated) society has always been afraid of, and sought to control, female sexuality. As the little girl in the cartoon said: “with one of these I can get as many of those as I want”.

@ Andy Gilmour

“Although must confess I’m glad my older monkey is only 6, so the serious conversations are still a little way off yet…”

My boys were six when it was clear the shit tales we tell kids to get away from telling the facts weren’t working and they were able to take in all the basic facts. . So I wouldn’t think they are even a little way off. Do brace yourself not to laugh at the questions though – they were hilarious

To answer your question – about ten years too late to start sex ed. Definately too late by adolescence as teenagers can’t take in the actual facts too well as are too embarassed, and also not trusting of adults.

Hey Otto, you know what? LET’S CAUSE MORAL PANIC! Because that always leads to GOOD EDUCATION!

Because OmG picture of VULVA! HAIRY vulva! That is EXACTLY THE SAME as teaching kids that it’s a vulva and not a fanny, front bottom, vagina or the origin of the world! EXACTLY THE SAME! Can you see it, can you, can you?

Seriously.

Mike, to your point about abusing the attorney, when he’s in contempt of court then contempt seems to be an appropriate response. Or, you know, maybe this is actually reality and not some wonky LA Law analogy.

The Lady makes a lot of sense and I can’t fault her statement: Education = Good. Ignorance = Bad. It really is that simple.

Whilst I generally agree with your sentiment, I don’t see why this should be a matter for state schools. Surely it is up to the parents – and the focus ought to be on helping parents talk about these topics with their kids?

Also: from the post – “I also believe it’s tantamount to neglect that in this day and age a girl of 16 can find herself pregnant because she ‘only did it the once and everyone told me I couldn’t get pregnant the first time,’ as happened to a friend’s daughter.”

Hmmm. Just hazarding a guess: is that what she *told her mother* had happened, perchance?

[27] Spot on. A teenage girl in the lowest quartile of the IQ range can gain self-esteem from pregnancy she can’t get any other way.

@DHG
“The Lady makes a lot of sense and I can’t fault her statement: Education = Good. Ignorance = Bad. It really is that simple.”

Sadly it’s not quite that simple. The shame is that all the focus is on the moral outrage at a great new rule change. The big important changes, however, are the content and delivery of the syllabus. About which, I can find virtually no information.

The UK Youth Parliament commissioned a survey not long ago – 40% of respondents said the sexuality education they received was poor or very poor, and 33% said it was average.

I’m sure the new syllabus will be better (what little information there is sounds very promising), and hopefully the teachers delivering it will actually be trained properly, so I’m cautiously optimistic.

Well Phil, I still think the basic premise of The Lady’s argument can’t be faulted.

Oh, absolutely. It’s just that there’s all this fuss over something that according to some sources will affect 0.04% of children. And the quality of content and delivery affects the other 99.96%.