Sex education at age four? Watch

River85
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#21
Report 10 years ago
#21
(Original post by jismith1989)
Why not? It's good for children to know how things work; why lie to them? I'd draw the line at practical work though.
To not teach them these things (and leave it till about six or seven) you rean't "lying to them". If a child asks then be direct and answer their questions.

Teaching them anatomical names, fair enough, but does a child (barely passed toddler stage) have the comprehension to understand about relationships? Just leave them be and let them be four year olds and start teaching it when they're a little older.

I'm just a little uncomfortable about state involvement really. I suppose if parents had the right to remove their children from these classes they may be acceptable.
0
reply
CheesyBeans
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#22
Report 10 years ago
#22
I agree that children should be getting a decent amount of education regarding sex during primary school. I remember being in year 7 of school and being very innocent and naive but when I was in sixth form there were a fair number of sexually active 11-12 year olds at the school.

I was first taught sex education when I was 9/10 and it was very poorly done. We were shown a video from the 80s featuring a robot telling a kid about sex and then the girls went off for a talk about periods.

The next time we covered sex in school was in a year 8 biology class where we were just taught the biology of it...eggs, sperms etc. In an RE lesson we were told about condoms but no other form of contraception or STIs but of course we were told you should only be having sex when you are married.

I think we were meant to have a more detailed sex ed session in year 11 with the whole condoms on bananas thing but the woman never turned up.

To be honest though, I don't fall for the whole "oh my sex education was really bad at school, I didn't know you could get pregnant by having sex" crap. A lot of girls from my school have children, and had them young, but there are also a lot of us who haven't. Even the basic sex education teaches us to wear a condom at least.
0
reply
SpiritedAway
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 10 years ago
#23
hmm. i think a bit older than that - year 6 maybe.
they already introduced it into my brother's school (last year) so he had to do this...i hear the new playground insult is "condom". you have no idea how embarrassing it is to hear an eight year old yeall "condom" across the playground.
i personally don't believe it will help...if anything i think it'll make kids more 'curious' at a younger age.
0
reply
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#24
Report 10 years ago
#24
(Original post by River85)
To not teach them these things (and leave it till about six or seven) you rean't "lying to them". If a child asks then be direct and answer their questions.

Teaching them anatomical names, fair enough, but does a child (barely passed toddler stage) have the comprehension to understand about relationships? Just leave them be and let them be four year olds and start teaching it when they're a little older.

I'm just a little uncomfortable about state involvement really. I suppose if parents had the right to remove their children from these classes they may be acceptable.
You are not uncomfortable about state involvement, I assume: for example, surely you accept the state's role in teaching mathematics to the country's children. Therefore, you are uncomfortable about sex. In the 21st century.
0
reply
River85
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#25
Report 10 years ago
#25
(Original post by jismith1989)
You are not uncomfortable about state involvement, I assume: for example, surely you accept the state's role in teaching mathematics to the country's children. Therefore, you are uncomfortable about sex. In the 21st century.
There's a difference between teaching mathematics and teaching about sex/relationships. The latter raises real moral concerns and, in my opinion, should be left to the parent (or, if must, taught at age 7/8). If the lessons were optional, fair enough, but it seems that, under the proposal, they are to be compulsory.
0
reply
Reue
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 10 years ago
#26
Once again the government trying to pass the responsability for parenting onto anyone other then the parents. If you teach a child about something mysterious like this, and then tell them not to do it... they will damn well go out and try it at first opportunity.
0
reply
PinkMobilePhone
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 10 years ago
#27
I will answer any questions my kids ask in a way that I feel is age-appropriate.

If they aren't asking, they aren't ready to know in my opinion, and I definitely don't think that all 4 year olds are ready to learn about sex. I would STRONGLY object if I sent my kids to school and they were taught sex education without me having been previously consulted to give my permission. I want to be able to assess whether or not my children are at a stage when I think it's appropriate for them to know about it or not. All children differ greatly and whilst it might be okay for some kids to know a little about how the body works, for others they might be nowhere near ready to know that at all.

My daughter has recently began asking a few things, and I've answered them in a way I think is appropriate. For example, yesterday, she asked me why I'd pooed my knickers. It wasn't poo though of course, I had just come on my period. I told her it was blood and that it's normal and it's something that happens to big ladies every now and then, and that's why I use 'mamas pads'.
She seemed fine with this explanation, and I don't think it needed expanding on at the moment. To be honest she seemed a little confused in any case about what 'blood' is, because she associates it with 'having a poorly' and needing antiseptic cream, so I didn't want to confuse her even further.

I don't think that she will be ready at aged 4 (she's nearly 3 at the moment) to learn sex education. It definitely should NOT be compulsory if you ask me. I think for a lot of children it will be just too much for them to take in.
0
reply
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 10 years ago
#28
(Original post by River85)
There's a difference between teaching mathematics and teaching about sex/relationships. The latter raises real moral concerns and, in my opinion, should be left to the parent (or, if must, taught at age 7/8). If the lessons were optional, fair enough, but it seems that, under the proposal, they are to be compulsory.
Therefore, you are uncomfortable about sex. What's wrong with knowing where a penis is? What a vagina is? That people sometimes do special things together when they love each other?

Unless of course you are Christian, in which case it's a foregone conclusion. :p:
0
reply
WOLLSMOTH
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report 10 years ago
#29
Teach it at nursery imo. Teenage pregnancies need to stop.
0
reply
Nath_england
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 10 years ago
#30
I've never been taught much, and havent even done the condom and banana practicle. I agree with the starting young way of doing things, but firstly they should improve teaching sex ed to teens before they start teaching it to much younger children.
0
reply
RJ555
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#31
Report 10 years ago
#31
I think its good, as long as they do it gradually. Its better than a brief chat at age 10/11 riddled with euphemisms and embarressment (and ignore that grammar Nazis, I know I can't spell)! Youve got to be direct with kids, scientific if you will, you can't beat around the bush.
0
reply
dh00001
Badges: 14
#32
Report 10 years ago
#32
4 is a bit young but teach anatomy etc. around then would be a step forward. certainly better than how i learnt; huddled around a stolen porn mag around back o the library with my mates...
0
reply
River85
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#33
Report 10 years ago
#33
(Original post by jismith1989)
Therefore, you are uncomfortable about sex. What's wrong with knowing where a penis is? What a vagina is? That people sometimes do special things together when they love each other?

Unless of course you are Christian, in which case it's a foregone conclusion. :p:
I'm certainly not a prude or uncomfortable about sex. Yes, I received a Catholic education but my sexual education was no worse (or absent) than others. In fact, if anything, being in a school with a strong pastoral system actually helped with such things.

I don't really have any problem with teaching kids about anatomical terms, let me make that clear. I just don't think they have the maturity and comprehension to learn about relationships and associated things at the age. Let them be kids. Ultimately responsiblity lies with parents and not the state. I really don't think our problem with teenage pregnancies is down to ignorance. There are numerous complicated factors and by teaching kids and health and relationships would not overcome these. Also parents and domestic factors have a greater influence than teachers do.

Take a look at PinkMobilePhone's post just above your last post. She speaks sense and this is from a parent, someone who is better qualified that anyone else to comment on this.

Society as a whole needs to be looked at, not just education.

That's another thing. People say the Dutch have the lowest teen pregnancy rate and they have a similar policy. We aren't the Dutch, there's a completely different culture.
0
reply
CheesyBeans
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 10 years ago
#34
(Original post by River85)
I don't really have any problem with teaching kids about anatomical terms, let me make that clear.
Surely that is all that would be taught at such a young age? Kids at this age have some sort of fascination with their genitals so surely it wouldn't do any harm to teach them about them? I remember being in infant school and a girl and boy in my class were showing each other their 'bits' in assembly.
0
reply
-M$ [email protected]
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 10 years ago
#35
(Original post by sarforaz)
Maybe its not when they start teaching about sex but how they teach it? I remember how crappy our sex ed lessons were...
lol very crapppy :p:
0
reply
Zerforax
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#36
Report 10 years ago
#36
Meh i think too much exposure at a young age makes children curious about something which they otherwise would not have given a second thought...
0
reply
Creole
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#37
Report 10 years ago
#37
I thought kids started school at 5?
0
reply
River85
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#38
Report 10 years ago
#38
(Original post by Creole)
I thought kids started school at 5?
The year that they turn five, so for many the actual age at which they start is four (going on five)
0
reply
-Em-
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#39
Report 10 years ago
#39
Before we start rolling it out to primary school children, perhaps we could begin by improving the quality of it where its already given? Spreading the same pithy nonsense out over 12 years rather than 5 isn't going to produce miracles.

Teenage pregnancy might be a problem, but what about the rising number of both heterosexual and homosexual HIV infections? Before we break the taboo of talking to sex about 4 year olds, it might be worthwhile to break the BS assumption that AIDS is a gay problem and that talking about it will get you carted off to jail under Section 28. Hell, then they could go one step further and stop failing in their duty of care to LGB youth too and actually mention anything remotely applicable to them!

Marvelous.
0
reply
Nu Ordah!!!!!!!!!!!!
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#40
Report 10 years ago
#40
It wont really have any effect good or bad. At that age the level of comprehension is so basic anyway.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (553)
37.82%
No - but I will (115)
7.87%
No - I don't want to (103)
7.05%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (691)
47.26%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise