Sex Education for 4 year olds !

I think some people still believe that young people who had been kept ignorant about sex would have no sex drive and be unable to do it. If that were true, wild creatures who had no "sex education" wouldn't know how to breed, so there would never be any baby animals born.

I don't think children start their periods at 5 or 9 years of age at all or at least it's very rare if they do
Caretaker I believe you are an older male and perhaps not an authority on this.

Even 60+ years ago a girl in my class had started her periods at 8.
I must say that most of the rest of us did not understand what it meant. However, our parents were requested to tell us a brief version of the 'facts of life' before we started senior school. Schools opted out in those days.

It's biology.

I think what is proposed is more to give small children an awareness of what is right or wrong rather than detailed sex education.

The lessons are called Personal, Sex and Health Education. Young ones are taught about relationships, how to look after friends, dealing with bullying, emotional intelligence - essential stuff. Then age appropriate sex education later. Misrepresenting this eg in that headline, is why parents freak out and withdraw their children. Unfortunately they will still be allowed to do this, which is a really bad idea. Parents who don't want their children to learn about sex and boundaries are more likely to be the ones who are abusing their children. No exceptions should be the rule - including for all private schools, and especially, for home educated children who are the extra extra vulnerable.

Oh and it must be specialist teachers, not the gym teacher dragooned into ticking it off the list in a spare half hour.

My mistake above, it's

PERSONAL, SOCIAL and HEALTH EDUCATION (PSHE)

Who could possibly object to that?

As a child I was brought up to think that sex was dirty and rude. Body parts never had a name in our house everything was "down there" and a simple scratch of the bum was met with " leave down there alone" or " what are you doing down there?" . My mum (and I am talking about the 70's here not the 20's) used to make my sister and I turn our backs whilst she altered her slip (petticoat).

Years after I had my son I tried to ask my mum why she refused to let me take part in the SE lessons and she could not answer me. She said that she felt that talking about "that" was wrong. I often wonder how I came to be?

I think that people are getting it out of all proportion and that it will be as Pamish says and very age appropriate. Since most children are abused by someone they know, and often from a very young age, I think it is a good idea. It will be a great shame if they can be withdrawn. It is also very easy these days to get risky images on the Internet completely by accident.

I think the world is a far different place now; its a good idea to teach about relationships, respect, boundaries etc.

Correct Letica

I made this point upthread, but the hysterical minority either don't read other posts or just enjoy misinformed rants.

The headline is misleading- I think you are right Anya in that some people don't get past a headline.

GillT57. We have read it funny in places but it was obvious after a few pages that most of the book was written by guess work rather than being researched.

As usual in discussions, there are those who adpot a very sensible, measured, non sensationalist attitude, backed by a small amount of research into the issue. Then there are those who rush in and jump to conclusions, over-exaggerate, invent and become obsessed with one minor part of the issue particularly if the media uses provocative language in its headlines.

PSHE, as Pamish said, is handled very sensitively and calmly and is designed to encourage children to think for themselves about behaviour boundaries and how to respond in various situations. It isn't pushed into the children's heads with the intention of worrying them or subjecting them to unnecessary detail.

I think it good to give this (not so very) "new" idea a chance for the sake of a more informed generation in a rapidly changing world.

Oh and by the way, Disney has just introduced its first gay character into its remake of Beauty and the Beast. Aren't young children going to watch that with an awareness of what exists quite normally in the world around them too?

We have a very peculiar attitude to sex in this country, which after all is a normal bodily function. From a very young age children are bombarded with sexual images, which are used to sell anything from toothpaste to alcohol, and the media is full of stories of celebrity sex lives and infidelities. UK has one if the highest teenage (15-17yr olds) birth rates in the Western world. Why would we object to giving children age related, sensitive, appropriate sex education as early as possible? Holland for example teach sex education from am early age and their teen birth rate is far lower than ours.

I agree Lazigirl. On the one hand, we don't let children talk about sex (because it's 'dirty'), but it doesn't stop them thinking about it and being confused when their sexual feelings overwhelm them.

It's been known for decades that quite young children have feelings which are sexual in nature, although they don't recognise them as being to do with the act of sex.

The resistance to the new regulations seems to be coming mainly from faith schools of a number of different religions. Parents will have the right to withdraw their children from lessons, but schools will have to provide it to those who do want it.

The OP is a grandmother so it would be interesting to hear what her DGC's parents think about it.

We were brought up and brought our children up in different times.

I don't think parents should have the right to withdraw their children from lessons. That is exactly what my parents did.

I agree with you gillybob.

I agree gillybob - they are probably the very ones who need it.

I think anything that has the word 'compulsory' in it is an issue. Our children and grandchildren have no need of being brought up by the state , their parents are quite capable of making choices for their children.

They're young, educated , modern thinking people who understand the challenges the children face in a technological environment. Their comment is that they prefer to make explanations to THEIR children at the appropriate time, in the appropriate manner. Not everyone is shy about these matters.

One size does NOT fit all in this instance.

I am sure some will say not everyone either explains these things to children well or wants to, and for them I say fine if you want to hand over to the state these things - that's up to you. But not everyone wants to do that and shouldn't have to.

We are careering into fast becoming ( if not already become) a nanny state .

Their comment is that they prefer to make explanations to THEIR children at the appropriate time, in the appropriate manner.

I appreciate what you are saying nanaandGrampy but that was exactly MY parents argument in the 1970's !

The difference I think Gillybob is there is an open essential that was not there in our parents generation. Even my generation were moving away from the whole secrecy about sex and our bodies.

I know that as questions have arisen their parents have dealt with them. They then share what's been told so we are all prepared to answer questions.

Grampy had a conversation with our 6 year old grandson when he was curious about our dogs insistence of giving an.old cushion a good seeing too . His obvious arousal was briefly of interest .explanation given in the broadest terms - interest lost.

We cannot be in the minority in this day and age surely ?

Not essential damn predictive text should have read openness

Personally I do not know of any 4yr old child who has a Facebook page or spends time on twitter or other social media websites. They are more interested in their toys or playing with their friends.

Why is there such an obsession with sex these days? Allow children to be children.

This smacks of double standards when fashion companies are being told to stop sexing children up when designing clothes.

Why do people think that telling a little innocent child that someone might just want to take them away and do horrible hurtful things to them would be a good idea? I would think it would traumatise the child myself. My niece didn't even like the thought of Santa coming in to her bedroom never mind a stranger/sex maniac/paedophile.

NanaandGrampy I agree with you. Too much interference by PC do gooders these days.

The difference I think Gillybob is there is an open essential that was not there in our parents generation. Even my generation were moving away from the whole secrecy about sex and our bodies.

I am not sure how old you are nanaandGrampy but my mum was only just 20 when she had me in 1962. My grandma (born 1916) was far more up to date in her thinking and attitude than my mum.

The point I am trying to make is that my mum should have never been given the option to exclude me from sex education as she did me a massive disservice. I was totally clueless.