SEX PAMPHLETS FOR SIX YEAR OLDS..
Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 07:26AM So, when your child reaches six years old, is that the right time to start having "conversations about sex"?
The country’s biggest sexual health charity has published a sex education pamphlet for six-year-olds to encourage earlier discussion of the facts of life. The 12-page comic-style booklet, which will be distributed to schools, asks children to identify the physical differences between boys and girls and name their body parts properly. One puzzle asks children to draw a line from the words “vagina” and “testicles” to the correct areas of a picture of a naked girl and boy. The pamphlet from the FPA — formerly the Family Planning Association — entitled Let’s Grow with Nisha and Joe, which will be shown to pupils by schools unless parents opt out, was immediately condemned by family campaigners as “a very worrying development”. They said that years of sex education had done nothing to tackle the teenage pregnancy rate, still the highest in Europe, and starting the education even earlier would make the problem worse.
I'm with those who see this as a revolting development. There is just NO need to be inculcating sex education into the minds of such young children and if anything, this form of sexualising childhood is likely to lead to kids having sex younger and younger. The State is obsessed with the need to provide sex education to kids.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (22)
David -
This has nothing to do with sex education, which is a seperate and nonsensical idea in any case. Six year olds have no business knowing this stuff. It is wholly irrelevent to their lives and minds. There is not a single possible situation in which a six year old child would need to know anything like this.
No, as always with sex 'education' this is to do with the sexualisation of children. The point is the moral and spiritual corruption of generations - and who can deny it's working well?
The education industry is infested with neo-Marxist moral perverts who shoudn't be allowed within miles of children. The country goes half mad at the Gary Glitters when they're caught, and very few in number they are, when State orthodoxy in the classroom is infinitely more damaging to children.
The Family Planning Association was long ago politicised by these strange people and turned into a powerful campaign against families, marriage and morality. If we're locking up the paedophiles, these people should be joining them.
Why prompt schools and parents into a situation where they can answer their kids in a sensible easy fashion when standing in a supermarket queue they could leave their kids to discover it on the front page of a lad's mag. Since these free market (whoo hoo!) businesses market taboo busting mags that are no longer top shelf, stick busty lusty babes all over the NotW in newswracks or trot out Britney as a floor humping >schoolgirl<, small wonder the woman in the article cited her 6 year old was 'already inquisitive'.
Sorry but the idea that explaining basic differences at that age freaks parents out says more about the stupidity of some parents.
I expected to click on the link and find it was a brochure directing kids to be homosexual or perform fellatio the way you lot freak out.
Yes using these pamplets to teach 6 years olds that they have a vagina or testicles is horribly earth shattering. Awful!
>>since these free market (whoo hoo!) businesses market taboo busting mags that are no longer top shelf, stick busty lusty babes all over the NotW in newswracks or<<
Alison, I don't think that makes much difference.
I doubt British magazines show full bonking on their covers, and if it's simple nudity you mean, I don't think that has any adverse effect on children.
They ignore it, realise it's not for them the same as countless other boring magazines for adults.
Sex education, whatever its merits, is bringing sex as a subject to where it was not before.
Of course children have a natural curiosity about their bodies, but the subject of sexual interaction is something quite unknown and - probably - discomforting for them at that age.
Noel
I don't think the pamphlet covers sexual interaction. Only male and female differences - which the media shoves in our faces (and was more my point). The woman cited in the article stated her kid is already inquisitive. I am not surprised. The pamphlet is benign in comparison to the very sexual message put out by the media (is what i mean).
We carry out market research on that age group and you would be surprised what is understood. I know I was. It's shocking.
For generations, at age six, kids were shielded from a lot of this sort of stuff, but in todays world, it's better to be forewarned. Unfortunately that isn't the society we are living in today, a sad reflection, I know...
Noel,
"I doubt British magazines show full bonking on their covers, and if it's simple nudity you mean, I don't think that has any adverse effect on children."
If there were anything worse than that in the pamphlet then I'm sure the Times or the Daily Mail would have breathlessly informed us about it.
Gosh! -
I've got a better idea. How's about we do what civilisation has done for thousands of years and continue to shield children from this kind of thing?
This is where the disconnect we have from our past is so useful to these supposed educators. The common view is that sex education is perfectly normal, something to be expected in schools. The truth is that it's a pretty recent invention, it's not compulsory for schools to include sex education on the curriculum and many schools still don't teach it.
The reason why it's a recent invention is because tutoring children about sex is wrong, immoral, plainly perverted and civilised cultures properly reject it.
I think it's important that kids, even 6 year olds, know the proper names for all body parts.
I don't think it's the government schools' responsibility to teach them those things.
They need to know more than mere body parts, they need to know about appropriate touching and behaviour. Sometimes that isn't taught in the home or the parents may not even have the skills to impart that kind of knowledge appropriately.
Pete it's in the interests of children to teach them how to protect themselves in this day and age. You'd tell them how to avoid other dangers why not stranger danger or from inappropriate behaviour from those they know and are in charge of them?
Gosh
That's a really good poont.
point even
Monica -
I think it's important that kids, even 6 year olds, know the proper names for all body parts.
Why? Give me one reason why it's 'important'? Are six year olds about to start work in operating theatres?
Gosh -
You'd tell them how to avoid other dangers why not stranger danger or from inappropriate behaviour from those they know and are in charge of them?
You could do as my parents did - "Peter, don't talk to strange men." Job done.
Leave children alone. Let them be children. Allow their minds to develop naturally and allow them to live in those minds.
For the love of God, you're suggesting that the way to stop stranger danger is to allow strangers to sexualise them.
Leave them alone, turn off the TV, stop feeding them processed crap and be a parent.
>>"it's important that kids, even 6 year olds, know the proper names for all body parts"
Why? Give me one reason why it's 'important'? Are six year olds about to start work in operating theatres?<<
LOL, I was just thinking how hard it'll be to get them to say "oesophagus"!
>>Leave them alone, turn off the TV, stop feeding them processed crap and be a parent.<<
Good advice.
Pete as with everything, you pontificate and thats the end of the story. Quite frankly what you are suggesting is laughable in the extreme. How many kids do you know who have never seen a programme on tv?
In a society where a paedophile can be living next door, or working in a childrens environment- like a pool attendant or a scout supervisor, or where many children have different 'fathers' and 'uncles', and on and on and on....or the local priest is a paedo in disguise, or mums new boyfriend is interfering with kids, you seriously think its enough to tell a child don't talk to strange men?
Amazing!
Be a parent by ignoring the dangers? :)
And remember pete this isn't only about parenting, but about the state in schools and charities trying to look out for the most vulnerable in society. And children are vulnerable in todays' society - do you really think they aren't?
I thought Gosh was referring to kiddy fiddling by daddy and the major lack of parenting skills generally out there which this edcuation fills in on. Not that this is covered in this pamphlet over which people are being frankly very silly.
Gosh -
There are no more paedophiles today than at any time and children are in no more danger. The only expansion has been in the numbers of supposed adults falling for a silly hysteria over minute risks.
All of which is a seperate argument anyway, since six year olds being terminologically correct makes them no more immune to kiddie fiddling, no matter who teaches them.
pete firstly I didn't make the argument for terminology. I agree with you, terminology is useless, but that doesn't take away from knowing about appropriate touching and behaviour.
Secondly the risks are not minute. Children are in more danger or I should say risk, since never before has society had such different models of 'family.'
Generations ago - the norm was the nuclear family, that isn't so anymore. There are many models for a 'family' now, and some leave children open to risk.
The first thing that strikes me after reading the link is how condescending the FPA is towards parents. They assume that the majority of parents are stupid and negligent towards their children. Any reasonably intelligent parent deals with their children's bodily awareness in an age appropriate manner pretty routinely - most kids start asking questions about their "parts" around two.
Schools have absolutely no business whatsoever charting the regions of private body parts for small children. That is way out of their purview and I'm slightly offended that this group thinks most parents don't deal with this very normal child rearing issue in a commonsense manner at home.
Daphne -
The Family Planning Association is misnamed since it was politicised by far Left fanatics. Its agenda is mass abortion and Left Wing social engineering.
Think East Coast liberal arrogance; they are clever and sophisticated, you're a Texan idiot. The FPA is our equivalent. They are enlightened North London liberals, we are unknowing trash.
"For the love of God, you're suggesting that the way to stop stranger danger is to allow strangers to sexualise them."
Nail firmly on head there, Mr.Moore.
No it isn't Pete. In all the time I was at school we never once had one of their "mass abortion" leaflets or lectures in our all girls school or any of the others in the neighbourhood. If that was their plan they were crap. In comparison to the legions of information available via US feminist websites it's a world apart. Most of the time the stupid places were never open when you needed them either. Useless.
They do supply the contraception leaflets in the doctors surgery though which were helpful. No abortion stuff. And that's in liberal London.