Sex education becoming mandatory in England

Friday 24th October, 06:20 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 23 Total Comments Show All

skipthesong at 10:12 AM JST - 24th October

So, as a parent, one shouldn't object to having their kids that young being taught something should be taught by a parent?

Look, I don't like when schools get involved in things that should be taught in the house. Additionally, while I know its next to impossible to filter what your kids watch and listen to, I think the media itself has a bit of a fault in a much of these teenage problems.
cleo at 10:23 AM JST - 24th October

Ship -

While I agree with you that the media does play a very large role in exacerbating teen problems, I think that when you talk of having their kids that young being taught something (that) should be taught by a parent you're falling into the trap of assuming that sex ed means nothing more than teaching the how-to's of sex, contraception and so forth. If they were proposing teaching that to kindergarten tinies, I would be as concerned as you are.

I also agree that sex ed in its broadest sense is something that should be taught by parents. But what about the kids whose parents can't or won't do the teaching? Surely matter-of-fact, accurate academic teaching by a teacher is better than false knowledge passed on by giggling classmates behind the gym - with fumbling, practical demonstrations?
bushlover at 10:43 AM JST - 24th October

This article just proves contrary to my belief that not all Brits are wankers. I apologize for my assumptions but in my defence only came to that conclusion due to their young adult behaviour. I even put the u in behaviour for their reading pleasure.
SezWho2 at 10:58 AM JST - 24th October

There's a difference between an increase in pregnancies and an increase in reported pregnancies. In my high school days, girls just disappeared. They don't have to do that now.

This is by way of saying that I'm not sure how much the media is really responsible for what we refer to as an increase in teen pregnancy. However, that strikes me as being beside the point of this law. I think children need to be taught for their own understanding and protection.

Children need to know and really understand that they have sovereignty over their bodies. This might, perhaps, assist in the problem of sexual predation by adults. Children, even young ones, have sexual feelings and need some guidance in understanding those feelings. Parents are an unreliable source of education as many of them are riddled with sexual hangups of their own.

As far as using correct biological terminology is concerned, I'm all in favor of it. Cute names for anatomical parts may be harmless. However, I think they may also disguise an attitude which parents themselves do not fully understand.
CavemanLawyer at 11:08 AM JST - 24th October

If sex ed leads kiddies to want to experiment with sex, then the teaching hasn't been age-appropriate.

Hmmm...while I agree with Cleo for the most part, I find this sentence to be subject to a lot of interpretation I would disagree with. Even for 5 year olds, I think some small range of experimentation is in order. I did it, and I am glad I was not put off by anyone to do it. Those little experiments did NOT encourage me in the least. In fact, they completely doused my curiousity toward that part of girl's bodies until I was about 7. Then more experiments satisfied me until I was about 10 and puberty started. And since 10 I have only rarely ever been satisfied, which is normal for any male who has passed puberty if you ask me.

If respect for their bodies were instilled in kids at a young age

Respect means different things to different people. Boys should be discouraged from peeping in the girl's changing room, but if they have curiousity, how are you going to teach them to satisfy it? It conjures up all sorts of uncomfortable scenarios, but its not something I want to leave to chance. They need to learn that there is a time and there is a place, and they need to make sure their playmates also want to play. Most of us did this, and denial is not all useful.

As Cleo says, we are talking about starting small here. And its a good idea. Most parents have no idea how to do that and try to pack it all into one conversation in the early teens. That won't work. Neither will one sex ed class for a semester in high school. This needs to be taught more regularly and with small steps and proper guidance while chopping out the fear mongering. --Cirroc
cleo at 11:42 AM JST - 24th October

Caveman -

I agree with you completely. I wasn't suggesting that I thought sex ed led to sexual experimentation, or that the ordinary, natural curiosity of children is a bad thing. We've all played Doctors and Nurses (haven't we?) I was trying to address the fears of those parents who object to sex ed because they fear that filling Little Junior's head with 'all that stuff' before he's ready for it will lead him to instigate an adult relationship with Little Miss Junior, orgies in the classroom and whataveyou.
timorborder at 11:45 AM JST - 24th October

Is this just another manifestation of Britain's feelings of inferiority with France? If they are serious about sex education, perhaps they should allow wholesale immigration from the Continent!
techall at 12:41 PM JST - 24th October

The only thing I can see as problematic is the word "manditory" in the story. I agree with the merits expressed by other in their posts but how about offering the same course but have it elective and let the parents decide at what age, or whether at all, to let their child take the instruction?
lou3993 at 01:51 PM JST - 24th October

If respect for their bodies were instilled in kids at a young age, we might see a bit less of the binge-drinking, drug-taking and living off junk-food and take-aways that appears to be knobbling the health of the UK's young. Fewer tattoos, too.

> @Cleo, I think you are way outta line here. Just because youngsters experiment with the above does not mean anything. When your a kid you try experiment with loads of different things. If someone wants a tattoo or eat a bag of chips they should be allowed too. (a vast difference between the two examples but the point is as long as they are careful there should be no problem.

its next to impossible to filter what your kids watch and listen to, I think the media itself has a bit of a fault in a much of these teenage problems.

@skipthesong,I think your spot on! This is one of the main culprits, Just by chance I was watching dirty dancing recently and it was supposed to be something scandalous in its hayday. But after watching some of the other stuff thats in the media today, dirty dancing could be considered on the same level as telly tubbies for media content!! If the media is not regulated then a counter attack needs to be met to teach kids as early as possible about themselves, their bodies and what is and isn`t socially acceptable in society.
cleo at 02:06 PM JST - 24th October

lou3993 -

I'm not talking about a bit of experimentation. I'm talking about young people habitually abusing their bodies through bad lifestyle choice because they have failed to learn to respect themselves. The occasional bag of chips or glass of wine isn't going to do anyone any harm, but a diet of nothing but junk food and enough booze to sink the Titanic, with club drugs every weekend, is a far cry from a bit of experimentation. By the time these people hit thirty and decide it's time to settle down and be serious, they have the bodies and minds of old men and women.

UK reality TV is a bit of a shocker - as is a stroll along Blackpool promenade on a Saturday night.

techall -

The problem with making the course elective is that very many of the parents who choose to opt out will be the very parents who are unwilling or unable to teach the necessaries at home.

I suppose it all depends on the content, and whether it truly is age-appropriate. Personally I'm all for it, but that doesn't mean I would want my kids being given practical instruction in condom use at the age of 5.
MikeBarrymore at 02:12 PM JST - 24th October

cleo- It's the twenty fiirst century, boys and girls have dosh and go out and have fun. It happens all over Europe, apart from the reserved French.

Sex education must be introduced a searly as possible, but be subtley taught, so the boys don't make silly jokes and turn the lesson into a farce, like when i was at school.

Nothing wrong with "recreational" supplements if education in the dangers are gievn. I did regualry, but stopped these days as i've grown older.
Nessie at 03:56 PM JST - 24th October

This article just proves contrary to my belief that not all Brits are wankers.

They might be even less so after sex-ed classes. ;)
usaexpat at 12:14 AM JST - 25th October

I can't believe it wasn't madatory before. Even the prudish US requires sex ed. The problem in the states however is that the states control the curriculum and thus in bible beater states kids are taught abstinence only. Anyway, good for England, maybe it will reduce the cases like that 11 year old brit girl recently who's mom was proud of her for keeping the baby.
OgieDoggie at 12:55 AM JST - 25th October

Kids at 5 yrs old have enough to deal with so why on earth add in something that they could care less about just to make things even more confusing. Kids learn all they need to know on the playground so who needs the Govt. telling them. Next we'll have the Govt. tell us which is the Govt. Approved sex position (where does it stop).

Oh and if you are a tax payer you already know which position that is!
cwhite at 01:16 AM JST - 25th October

how about teaching the parents first, many are in great need...