At what age should sex education be taught?

[BowdonUK]

I was listening to the radio this morning and the story about the LGBT protest in Birmingham was being discussed. During the conversation it came out that schools are teaching sex education to kids around 4 years old, at primary school age.

This is the first time I'd heard of the actual age they were teaching it at. I'm shocked. Why would they be taught this at such a young age? I wasn't thinking about sex or relationships at 4 years old. I can hardly even remember what I was thinking at that age never mind learning about sex education! From my vague memories I just remember enjoying school, being in class and learning the basics of education.

I'm not sure how long teaching kids sex education at 4 years old as been going on for but it sure explains why kids are growing up too fast! I think the LGBT aspect is just being used as a justification. But in reality most kids are not thinking along those lines at all, whether LGBT or straight.

What do others think about this, 4 years old to be taught sex education, do you think that's ok?

 

[BowdonUK]

I heard two age ranges, 3 to 4, and 4 to 5, thats why I said around 4 years old. I didn't just grab the ages from thin air. It's whats being reported.

I'm all for teaching sex education, relationship advice, and I don't care if its LGBT stuff either. I just think that kinda stuff is better at secondary school in my opinion. Maybe the relationship part a few years earlier. But under 5's I think its wrong on a number of levels. Kids should be focusing on themselves and growing up.

 

[BowdonUK]

Well some is, some isn't. Learning that some men live with other men isn't learning anything inaccurate or confusing. But in that list is also "some boys are girls, some girls are boys" and that is. It's teaching gender conformity and that if a girl likes "boy" things, she's not a real girl. You should see some of the Mermaids presentations which are all pretty princesses at one end, GI Joe at the other and instructions that if you don't fit your stereotype you're "on the spectrum". It's damaging stuff. I know so many women who say that if the Trans lobby had been around when they were a young girl they'd have been picked up and diagnosed as "trans".

And people wonder why there is such insecurity these days with younger people in general. They have that this education pushed on them before they had a chance to naturally discover themselves.

 

[BowdonUK]

I don't understand why kids need to be taught about relationships at 3 or 4 years old.

I can understand later on, maybe 8 or 9, and then in secondary school about sex education.

I've had no education about relationships and only had a couple of sex education lessons at secondary in my school era.

If feels like the part about different family setups being taught at such a young age, when the kid is likely now to become confused and insecure, is brainwashing. There also seems to be an assumption that a lack of education about Billy has 2 dads means there will be a negative reaction. Why can't it just come up in conversation if somebody asks? Why does there need to be a whole lesson, weekly, devoted to it? I'm sure the time could be spent on other more practical things.

 

[BowdonUK]

But has anyone actually referenced the article in question and confirmed that it was sex education? I very much doubt the latter, but happy to see evidence to the contrary.

The radio I was listening to was LBC with Nick Ferrari interviewing Ester McVey. It's towards the end that sex education comes in to the conversation. Then after that I was looking up various articles mainly around the Birmingham protest to see what they was actually protesting about.

I'm not sure I can listen to her patronising voice to look up the exact minute though.

 

[BowdonUK]

Amazingly, a 4 year old has a pretty narrow view of the world, which tends to extend as far as their immediate family unit. When they start mixing with other kids, they find that other family units exist, and they can find that strange. Talking about it gives them the chance to learn that not all families are exactly the same as the one they grew up in.

Other family units in my kids' school involved 2 dads with an adopted child, a few single mums (including a domestic abuse victim and a widow), 1 single dad (widower) and several blended families. It's not brainwashing to talk about things that already exist within the school. SRE doesn't teach kids "you should have 2 dads" - it teaches kids "some people have 2 dads". If a child is confused and insecure by that, I would suggest that's on the parent.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the conversations don't just "come up" - they're forced on kids. Mother's day could have been a really awkward time for the widower dad, but it had already been discussed among the class, so his daughter wasn't the odd one out - she made him a really sweet "Daddy, you're the best mummy" card.

It's not a whole lesson weekly, mainly because reception age kids don't have a rigid lesson structure. It's taught little and often. You're also wildly over-estimating what reception age children are taught - for example, if a 4 year old tells you they did history at school today, it probably means they coloured in a picture of a Roman soldier.

It's been a long time since I've been to school and all the kids in the family are grown up now so I'm out of the loop, so I'll concede to yours and others experiences.

I was more just shocked at the age mentioned and sex education was mentioned. But I can see this might have been purposely said to shock and give a wrong impression.

I'm all for kids learning about relationships. I would just want them to know themselves first.

I think it as to be a very fine balance in how things are taught. That over emphasis isn't put on people in non-traditional relationships or genders i.e. like those are special. I can understand if someone doesn't have a mummy or daddy, or some other family setup, that they shouldnt be left out or made to feel bad about it. But I think it is a very careful balance in inclusivity, equality, and elevating those relationships to be higher than normal i.e. special. Becuase in the long run if the balance isn't right then there is going to be a lot of confused kids.

I'm a disabled person and if I was the only one in the class and it was sports day I wouldnt want the teacher to be explaining to the class all my background and why I'm not able to run. I wouldn't want the other kids feeling sorry for me, or even feeling guilty that they can run. That is my worry.

 

[BowdonUK]

There was a boy who used an electric wheelchair in the year below my younger daughter - none of the kids ever treated him like it was weird because of SRE. He still played football on the playground (he was slow, but good - you try tackling a wheelchair ) - he was the egg and spoon race champion at sports day for 6 years running, but got his ass kicked on the relay. He was never pandered to, but never excluded, and none of the other kids gave a monkeys about the disability - they just accepted him for who he was.

That is good to know. I know when I moved to 'normal' education when I went to college it was good just to feel like one of the group.

I guess the issue on sex education shows how it can be distorted by politicians pushing an agenda. I wonder how much information the schools publish to counter things like this? It would be good to have a resource thats easily accessable so when people hear things on the radio,tv or newspapers they can go to a source and get the real answer.

This thread as been informative!