Why Are Politicians So Hung Up On Sex Lessons?

The number of pregnancies in girls under 16 in Scotland is higher than most other western European countries.  For all the money thrown at the problem it has failed to decline.

However, Holyrood's Health and Sport Committee, chaired by Duncan McNeil, thinks it has the answer.  It recommends that 'from the earliest age possible' sexual health and relationship education should be provided.  In theory the lessons could be taught in nursery classes.

The committee is also proposing children as young as 13 should be provided with contraception.

It's acknowledged the present approach has made little difference to the problem. Perhaps if the age for sex lessons was increased rather than lowered, there may be a chance for children to have a childhood.  Surely our politicians should be more concerned with ensuring every child leaves school numerate and literate.

I've put a poll in the side bar in case anyone wishes to express their opinion.

source

Tweet

The Kingdom's Claim To Fame

In 2009 the Kingdom of Fife had the highest teenage pregnancy rate, in the under-16s.  At 9.2 per 1,000 it was the highest in Scotland and one of the highest in western Europe. In the under-18s age group the figure was 47.7 per 1,000.

In a report sexual heath doctors felt they were 'firefighting - struggling with crisis situations rather than prevention' and argued that there ought to be better sex education for youngsters and more support for young mothers.

So what do these 'experts' suggest as 'better sex education for youngsters'? Unbelievably, they want the morning-after pill to be available to girls in Scotland's schools in an attempt to reduce the high number of under-age pregnancies.

They want to turn our schools into health centres instead of places where children should be fed information which will provide them with the skills to live a responsible and fulfilling life.

As vaccination against the sexually transmitted disease human papilloma virus is already available to schoolgirls in school time, the experts want to go further.  Not only do they think the morning-after pill should be available but also condoms and contraception.

This is a good example of giving 'experts' an inch and they take a mile. With hindsight, the HPV vaccination should have been administered within a health centre setting outwits school hours and not in school, but I expect the practicalities of that made it impossible.  Those who were more at risk - those who have no sense of responsibility - would have shunned the vaccination.

How much more responsibility do schools have to take for the sexual behaviour of school children?

Something is going very wrong in our society.  Our education system is slipping down the charts and one of the reasons could be that so much time is spent teaching social issues instead of the subjects which may be helpful in their adult lives.  There are breakfast clubs in many schools and are well attended.  

What are parents saying about this?  I don't hear them protesting.  Have they all succumbed to the 'experts know best' adage?  Don't parents feel any shame about not providing their children with a plate of porridge which costs less than 15p to make?  The more schools attempt to replace parental responsibilities the more parents will wash their hands of their children and this attitude will replicate in these children when they are adults.

Surely someone somewhere will speak up on behalf of these children and insist that, unless emergency mass medication is required, all health issues should be dealt with by local health centres.

What I don't suppose has crossed the minds of the experts is that their idea would, at most and not including holidays, only be 5/7ths effective.  The morning after pill would only be available 5 mornings a week.  

Fifty years ago part of the deterrent for girls was the inconvenience and embarrassment of having to attend clinics. The clinics existed then but as schoolgirls we didn't know about these things and had no particular interest in sex. We'd been taught the only contraception was abstinence and it worked, with the odd exception.

We must keep these foolish ideas outside schools.  What these experts should be doing is examining the type of sex education that is provided in schools because it's not giving the intended results and resolving the issue from the core.

Tweet

Sex Education Has Let Down Our Children

"Another one sexting Sarge. Chuck him in the

back with the others." 

Last week Channel 4 News ran a piece about the latest teenage craze of 'sexting'.  It involves young people sending each other naked photographs of themselves.

Rather than being shocked by this behaviour I was saddened listening to the youngsters responses to Jon Snow's questions.  

Porn is available to all on the internet and it seems some young boys (the majority are males) readily access these sites and become to believe that material displayed is the norm.

An extract from the Channel 4 investigation:

What shocked me was not that this was happening, but the scale that it was on from early teen years. Girls are bombarded almost on a daily basis with requests for what are simply now called "pictures". Boys collect the various naked photos in an album as a sort of trophy. Girls receive unrequested photos of boys' private parts. Boys send sex lists with smiley faces asking girls what they would do. Often they don't even know each other, or have never even met.

"It just happens. It's normal," was the common response. It seems this is the new way of flirting, and the modern way of playground dating.

Sex education is schools has let our children down.  The do-gooders who celebrated getting explicit sexual material into schools should hang their heads in shame.  Many protested about the content of the information provided but were cast aside and labelled prudes, yet more and more boys are accessing porn.

There's nothing shameful about the naked body and I'd seen a naked male body every night of my life until the age of 10, when my parents finally moved to a house where I had a bedroom of my own.  Seeing my brother undressing or dressing held no fascination for me as a child and neither of us was embarrassed.  I would have been uncomfortable with my teacher explaining the sexual uses of the male and female body at a young age though, but that is what has been happening in our schools for a couple of decades.

Now, with the use of technology, children have taken the information a step further, as children usually do and our professional educators appear to have decided to ignore the problem.

As the article states, some children affected by the constant demands for naked photos, are carving for adults to discuss it with them.  I'm sure, until this was exposed, many parents and grandparents (including myself) had no clue about this latest use of mobile phones - I refuse to term it flirting because that involves a degree of emotion by at least one party - but they do now and it's their responsibility to ensure they talk with their child and listen to their concerns.

So, initially it's the responsibility of parents to open the dialogue, but also teachers have a part to play by ensuring they warn their pupils about the dangers of being involved in sending naked photographs of themselves. Perhaps the best message I would give them is: 'Where sex is concerned people can become unscrupulous and if you don't want to chance seeing your naked picture shown in cyberspace don't send it.  Remember, if a boy has your mobile number then they possibly have your name and other information about you, even if they are strangers to you.'

A simple message and one which should be relayed by teachers as soon as possible in an effort to stem the growth of this distasteful craze.

Tweet

The Sexualisation Of Children

This morning I listened on and off to Call Kaye on Radio Scotland. The subject was the  sexualisation of children.  Only one mother mentioned she wanted to control the pace of her children's learning about sex. Others banged on about various main television channels permitted today's pop stars to 'pedal their wares'.

Most of the programme callers concentrated on pop star videos, billboard advertising and magazines; all of which the parents berated while the media industry are relaxed about it.

What I couldn't understand is why these parents were upset or were they the few who also disapproved the Section 28 of the Local Government Act, (section 122 in the rest of the UK).  It's my belief that the repeal of this Act contributed greatly to young children being indoctrinated into the world of sex at far too young an age though of compulsory education system.

I agree with homosexuality being included in sex education for seniors pupils but why didn't politicians revise the proposal to include an age guide?  The approval of Section 28 gave licence to anyone with enough political contacts to ensure that their specific aims were met.

We now teach sex education to 5-year-olds. Is it any wonder that today's young, by that I mean 5-12 year olds, parents think nothing of buying their children clothes which they think are 'fun'?

My favourite Scottish journalist, Iain Macwhirter protests about his young daughter singing the words to a Barbarian popstar.  Has Iain sighted the material is daughter is taught in school these days.  I doubt it.  He's a man who is trusting. I used to be trusting too.

When I was a teenager risque lyrics conveyed little.  They were part of the 'my pals understand what they mean and I must play along to be part of the crowd'. It reminds me of peer chat about the loss of virginity. It only took one pal to say she'd had sex to create a continual stream of those who made confessions over a Coke.  Strangely the other sexual partner was never named but to say "I've done it too", was enough to create awe and congratulation within your peer group.

Let me say here that I'm still in contact with the friend who first announced to our group that 'she'd done it'.  That was a lie she admits, but as teenagers in the 60s we felt, with the introduction of the pill, that we'd nothing to lose. The loss of our virginity to many of us in the 60s meant ' we had done IT' but usually sexual contact was a little, if not a lot, distant from intercourse.  I speak from a female's view of course and I'm sure many lads of my age boasted they'd 'cracked it', although my male friends never divulged their sex life.

Why is the Guardian so laid back about Bailey's report on the sexualisation of children?  I'm not smiling and I hope millions of parents aren't either. But then with some left wing believers anything goes so long as it doesn't affect their own.

God help us.

Tweet

EHRC Needs To Be Abolished

Trevor Phillips- chair of EHRC

Not only is the Equality and Human Rights Commission fascinated by ethnicity they're obsessed with sexuality and ensuring every child's sexuality is recorded. Those working with young people in schools, healthcare and youth services are being advised to set up pilot studies to monitor adolescent sexual orientation and not dismiss gay feelings as a 'passing phase'.

Although children should be told about the nature of the survey by the EHRC, it says parental consent, while 'considered good practice', is not a legal necessity.  The paper advocates asking 11-year-old children to divulge their sexuality because some 'question their orientation as early as eight and may begin to identify as LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) from early adolescence'. They advise a record should be kept of those 'unsure' or 'questioning' their sexuality.

Why are our leaders allowing this quango to continually target our children about sexual matters?

I find this latest development perverse and bordering on the abuse of children.  Let me explain why I feel so angry about this despicable behaviour from the EHRC.

When I was around 11 years old I had a massive crush on a girl in 5th year.  I wasn't alone in my adoration and I vied with another slightly older girl for the attention of my idol.  She was a very gifted musician - played piano, flute and oboe - and I truly thought she was the most wonderful person I'd ever met.  She was also very pretty with long, flowing dark brown hair.  Her nature was gentle and her patience, with my small group of peers, was infinite. Vaguely I can recall attending orchestral practices early just to set up her music stand for her.

At the age of eleven I knew nothing about LGB and my knowledge of sexuality was limited to male and female.  My brilliant Latin teacher would be known today as LGB because she wore male clothing and also sported a short-back-and-sides, yet she commanded total loyalty and respect because of her ability to make her subject intriguing and entertaining for children. None of her pupils would allow others to criticised her, although we permitted the use of her nickname 'Kipper feet' - because we used it ourselves.

If someone had asked me questions about my sexuality at the age of eleven I may have well have been tick-boxed as LGB if I had innocently mentioned my idol.  Many of my peers could have been in a similar position.  Crushes were common.

The damage the label could have caused is unthinkable. It could have created serious psychological problems which would have affected any relationships and, although I know I'm neither lesbian or bisexual, there would always have been that niggle of doubt instilled in me, as an 11-year-old child, by adults with a disturbing agenda.

Thankfully, at the age of eleven none of my peers was subjected to questions or sex education which could quite easily destroy childhoods as well as adult lives.

The EHRC should have no influence or input in the education of our children. Using children to push their LGB programme is discrimination insofar as adults are not part of this survey.  It's always so much easier to target schoolchildren though because they're a captive group. Removing the requirement for parental consent when a child is subjected to any form of sexual questioning must be confronted.  Parents must reassert their authority and stop this erosion of childhood. Why are parents not taking to the streets in protest?  Are they content to allow the state to take such control of their children?

I would willingly campaign to have the EHRC abolished.  Their agenda is unhealthy and at times unscrupulous. Although Teresa May has a 'Reform' consultation document currently in circulation, I don't think reform is the answer; mainly because the same people will be making the decisions regardless of any superficial changes.

We all know it's quite unrealistic for all of us to be treated equally; there will always be those who believe themselves to be more equal than others, but if we must have a government department which interests itself in equality and human rights, then it has to be less obsessed with sexuality and more interesting in ensuring the vulnerable in our society are treated fairly and respectfully.  Such a department should not have the right to instruct those who teach our children while willfully disregarding the rights of parents.

Tweet

Sex in the City

The photo is my old school, Morgan Academy, Dundee.  It's one of two schools in the city of Dundee - the other being Menzieshill High School - that has been part of a pilot scheme for the past year.

Nothing unusual about that until you learn that the pilot scheme, operated by Health Buddies, involves the recruitment and training of S3 (14-15-year-olds) in sex and relationships.  The S3 pupils then pass on their knowledge to S1 (11-12-year-olds).  The board of NHS Tayside were told the Health Buddies project has been awarded a Diana certificate of excellence.  Wow.

The aim of the scheme is to reduce teenage pregnancies as Dundee and the surrounding areas are consistently reported having the highest rates in Scotland.

Trustees of NHS Tayside Endowment Fund have agreed to provide £150,000 from the charitable fund to continue the programme and extend the scheme to two more schools in Dundee.

I'm bewildered by this sum of money going towards 15-year-olds teaching 12-year-olds about sex and relationships.  It must be a generational problem because I don't understand what experience 15-year-old children have of sex and sexual relationships.  'Training' them in the subject sounds very NWO to me.  If this scheme involved 6th year pupils instead of those aren't even old enough to legally leave school and are still legally minors, then it would be a different story.  Aren't teachers providing enough sex education?  There's enough time and money spent on the subject. Our schools are taking on more and more parenting responsibilites which dilute their reason d'etre of providing children with a formal education.  Is it any wonder standards in basic subjects are falling?

To put this expenditure into perspective - the Trustees also approved £19,200 from the endowment fund for the benefit of severely disabled children.  The money will be spent on an upgrade of the sensory room at Glenlaw House where children go for respite to give families a break from round the clock caring.

A further £15,296 of charitable funding was approved to convert an out-patient corridor at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee to an eye clinic consulting room.  Why on earth is a charity paying for internal alterations to an NHS hospital?

 source

Tweet

The Result of Sex Education in Schools

The above figures exclude data from other sources other than sexual health clinics. Health workers believe numbers have risen dramatically since 2008 especially in cases of chlamydia.

The numbers for those being checked for the infection is staggering and represent a 14% rise on the previous year. Official figures show the largest increase in testing for chlamydia is among the youngest age group. The latest statistics saw a dramatic rise of 21% in tests on young men aged 16-24 and in young women of the same age there was an increase of 16% recorded in the same period.

A sexual health clinic source is speaking out anonymously because of her concerns of youngsters putting themselves at risk. She paints a bleak picture of irresponsible behaviour.

"There are more young boys and girls aged 12 and 13 having sex these days than ever before," she said.

"I don't know why they are starting so young but we see the fallout. (Could this also be part of the reason?)

"The knock-on effect is that cases of underage pregnancies and kids having chlamydia and other STIs rise. In many clinics the staff can't cope with the numbers.

"We are seeing a lot of teens with STIs or coming in for abortions.

"I have been told stories about 'daisy-chaining' where groups of teenagers from both sexes go to someone's house while the parents are out and swap partners until every boy has been with every girl.

"The problem is often fuelled by alcohol which they consume at parties and sometimes younger teens can be forced into having sex.

"If they're thought to be mature enough then patients don't need to have their parents with them when they're being treated for STIs or having abortions.

"They can also tell them not to send anything to their GP or house.

"The kids can get the bus into town for an abortion during the day and get back up the road for their dinner without their parents ever knowing."

Tory health spokesperson Mary Scanlon MSP said teens must be educated about the dangers of practices such as daisy-chaining.

That's nonsense. It's sex education which has stimulated the very young to experiment to this degree, along with the fact that they can dictate to health professionals that they don't want parents to be informed. Who decides if an under 16-year-old is mature? I thought all under 16-year-olds were called children and until they reach the age of 16 they are the full responsibility of their parents.

These children have no barriers to sex. There is no punishment for behaving in this manner at such a young age. For many of us over say 40, the very thought that your parents would be told or find out was enough to make you run a mile. As for acquiring an STI, I would have been mortified, even when a young adult.

Sex education in schools hasn't produced good sexual behaviour in children - certainly not going by these figures - so isn't it time it was given less of a priority and more time spent on learning how to read, write (plus spell) and add well enough to gain adequate employment when they leave education?

source

Tweet

Sex for Seven and Eight-Year-Olds

Seven and eight-year-old children are being shown a controversial Channel 4 sex education DVD, Living and Growing, at their primary school.

This one minute clip from the 15 minute cartoon-styled film shows a couple chasing each other round a bed and having sex. A voice-over on the DVD describes the sex as 'exciting'. (Youtube required me to register as over 18 before I could access it for the embed code).

A mother, who withdrew her 7 year-old from a school where her daughter was shown this video, said the school sent parents a letter saying they could view the film before it was shown to pupils, but the mother was unable to attend.

What is happening in our schools when parents have to thoroughly vet the material their children are taught? Have teachers lost all common sense? The excuse that thousands of these 'information' packs have been sent out in the past ten years angers me.

Showing infants this explicit material is way beyond the pale. I remember how I behaved at that age. Behaviour read in comics was re-enacted with pals. Children who attended the Saturday morning pictures would come home and if the 'big' picture had been a cowboy, the boys would play cowboys and indians all weekend. We copied without understanding. That's all part of childhood and parents have a responsibility to ensure that children know reality from fantasy.

According to statistics recently 30-40% of children don't reach a reasonable level of reading and writing by secondary school, yet they are taught about sex. For all the sex education provided in this country teenage pregnancies have not dropped by more than a few per cent.

You can call me old-fashioned, behind the times or say children today are far more 'grown up' than they were in the 50s. Whose fault is that? Why are so many children losing out on a carefree childhood? Because our schools are filling their heads with information far too detailed for their years when they should be teaching them what is important to their survival in this competitive, world such as reading, writing, the sciences, geography and history. I'm certainly not against young children being told where babies come from but it could be done much more simply and even more effectively.

Some of you will ask why I object to such detailed sex lessons in infant/junior schools when it's common knowledge many parents don't/won't discuss it with their children. Wouldn't the answer be for schools to provide parents with the DVD and ask them to watch it with their child/children when they reach the age the parents feel it would be appropriate? Give the power to the parents. Leave the graphic detail until children are in first year.

I'm weary of hearing parents being blamed for not taking responsibility for their children's social and well-being education. Most parents do although they have had their rights gradually stripped away over the years. Stand up to Ed Balls and his Department for Children Schools and Families and tell him 'no more' for children in their first two or three years of formal education. They have at least 11 years of schooling in this country and therefore plenty time to gain knowledge of sex. I didn't have sex education at school and it didn't do me any harm. I didn't have parents who felt they could explain it either.

Time to get formal education back to basics and stop filling up the curriculum with subjects like climate change and sex - to name just two.

Tweet

Teach Children to Read and Write

Glasgow, Scotland's largest local authority area, intends to give sex education to children as young as 4, in a move which the council says has been welcomed by parents and teachers.

Primary one pupils will learn about human body parts and animal reproduction as part of the new Sexual Health and Relationships curriculum which runs through to the sixth year.

Glasgow City Council claimed that the lessons had the "overwhelming support of pupils, parents and teachers alike."

How can a 4 year old declare overwhelming support for this and where are they finding the parents who support this?

Why can't children be allowed to have a childhood anymore instead of being force fed information far more suited to older children? It's very possible some of these wee ones can't even tie their own shoelaces, far less have a burning desire to know about body parts and animal reproduction.

Introducing more sex education into schools has not decreased the rates of teenage pregnancies or STDs.

Isn't it time our young children were taught the three Rs instead of filling their curriculum with classes in sex education? Isn't it time schools stopped being parents to our children and instead encouraged parents to do the parenting?

Children are at school only 30 hours a week and there's only so much can be taught during that time. Get on with their formal education and teach them how to read, write and count Glasgow - Scottish education standards are slipping and this nonsense is not going to improve that one bit. Or is this the easy way out?

Source: Times

Tweet