Sex Education for children as young as 5

[SkyWishes]

Here in England a goverment scheme to teach sex education to children from 5 and up has been put into place. It starts with understanding relationships etc. and then later on goes into sex. Before the only sex education as such here in England was what was taught in biology. I can't help feeling disguisted by this. Isn't this the parents job, not the states? Why do children need to know these things? ok I can understand that children are growing up quicker these days and yes they do end up in sexual relationships sooner but I still feel its wrong. I was wondering what others opinions are on this? One thing I don't think they will be teaching is the staying pure and chaste before meeting your life partner... i am thinkng about lds parents sending their children to school in the UK? Anyway I'd be very interested to hear peoples views for or agaisnt it.

Edited October 28, 2008 by pam

[countrygirl66]

I think 5 is way too young in my opinion. Do the parents have the option to opt out of the program? My children don't start that type of education until 5th and 6th grade and that starts with a maturation program. In jr high 7,8,9 grades they go into sex education. The parents have to sign a form to allow your children to take the class and the parents also get to see the book that it is taught from. It has allowed us to go through the book as parents with our children and incorporate our beliefs with it. I think sex ed has a place in school but all to often kids are given sex ed info with no moral infor or responsiblity info or respect info.

[SkyWishes]

I think its very good they get the parents to sign for the lesson and the kids get to take a book home and can discuss with their parents. At least that is giving the parents a part in teaching this most delicate of education topics. Its compulsory so I don't think there are any consent forms. It has left me feeling very worried and unsure for when the time comes I'll be sending my children off to school (hay thats a long way away I havn't even found Mr Right yet lol) But I just feel so sad at the quickly dropping standards of society. I don't mean to sound snobby but.. our children are precious, they are daughters and sons of God. Oh I don't kno I guess they are the "facts of life" but when your 8 do you really need to know? Or shouldnt you just be worried about having the latest barbie? With the loss of innocence so too goes the magic..

[georgia2]

You better believe they won't teach staying chaste and pure!

There is a couple who give talks and seminars, and have few books that are LDS on this subject. Maybe you could go to Deseret Books and put it into the search engine.

Through sad experience I have learned that children DO need to be taught certain things about this by their parents at an early age. They need to know about how sacred their body is and that we have to protect it. They need to know that there are not nice people who can do things to hurt them if they are not educated. They also need to know on a very limited basis how sacred relationships are between husband and wife so that YOU have taught them this BEFORE they learn ugly stuff somewhere else. Yes it is a shame that we have to do this, but we are in the latter days and you have to protect them.

[SkyWishes]

Georgia thank you for sharing!! How very true. I can see how very important those things to teach our children are. It's things like this that really make me feel so grateful to our Heavenly Father. For having a latter day prophet to guide us. For the book of mormon. For supportive familys. It just gives me so much peace really. In a world where marriage is no longer sacred. Where sick people hunt out children and exploit them. Where sex has become more of recreational getting to know you as opposed to the act for the sacred creation of children our Father in Heaven designed it to be. I have so much peace right now just thinking about it. How WE as LDS know how Heavenly Father wants it to be. A man and women. Sealed for time and all eternity. Helping each other, balancing each other. Creating children, precious children. Protecting them, nurturing them. Children growing up with divine values. chased, virtuous, pure. :)

[Wingnut]

I think it is important for children as young as 5 to know that it's not okay for someone to touch them in places they are not comfortable with, and if someone does do that, that the children know (1) it's not their fault, and (2) who they can go to to report/talk about it. If that is what is referred to as "sex ed" for 5 years olds, then yes I think it is appropriate.

[Jenamarie]

I think it is important for children as young as 5 to know that it's not okay for someone to touch them in places they are not comfortable with, and if someone does do that, that the children know (1) it's not their fault, and (2) who they can go to to report/talk about it. If that is what is referred to as "sex ed" for 5 years olds, then yes I think it is appropriate.

ITA. And lessons like that are too important to leave solely in the hands of parents because, unfortunately, it's sometimes the parents who are doing the abuse.

[Elgama]

well I am 32 and was brought up in England my primary school did sex education from 5, well 4.5 actually - my Mum started it before that.

I believe it was fantastic and part of why even before I became LDS I found the strength to say no, part of it was respect for our own body and learning to take control of our own actions - I knew what it was I was saying no too. Nearly all of the children in my primary school were at very least in their late teens before they became sexually active in comparison to children who came to high school from other schools who started at 12 or 13. If I had said yes I also knew how to use a condom by the time I was 13.

Girls start their periods as young as 8 it is important that is taught as young as possible, so that girls are aware what is happening to them - I was lucky I was 16 and well prepared before mine started but a couple of my good friends were traumatised at 8.

So I think as long as it is backed up at home (or even if it isn't its more important to get some advice than none), and is handled like ours was its a really good idea.

IMO good quality sex education starts in the home from birth by not touching your child unless you have to without their permission, by teaching them they are beautiful. But not every child gets that and sadly given the questions asked in the back of the Between Husband and Wife book clearly a lot of LDS are those in the dark and are put in a very dangerous position because actually they do not know what it is they need to say no too

-Charley

Edited October 27, 2008 by Elgama

[Wingnut]

ITA. And lessons like that are too important to leave solely in the hands of parents because, unfortunately, it's sometimes the parents who are doing the abuse.

Even if they aren't doing to abuse, many parents don't think about teaching their child about touching at such a young age. Teaching it in school ensures that it does in fact get taught, and it isn't teaching sex...it's teaching boundaries and appropriateness. Some parents are so freaked about about EVER having to talk to this kids about sex that they don't talk about some of the things that are important, but only somewhat related, like this.

[siouxz72]

I think it is important for children as young as 5 to know that it's not okay for someone to touch them in places they are not comfortable with, and if someone does do that, that the children know (1) it's not their fault, and (2) who they can go to to report/talk about it. If that is what is referred to as "sex ed" for 5 years olds, then yes I think it is appropriate.

I always taught my kids the swim suit rule. They should never be touched by ANYONE in ANY area that their swim suit covers... unless it was a medical professional with parental consent and me or their daddy was in there.

[Wingnut]

I always taught my kids the swim suit rule. They should never be touched by ANYONE in ANY area that their swim suit covers... unless it was a medical professional with parental consent and me or their daddy was in there.

That's good to start...I'd add or anywhere else that you are uncomfortable with.

[a-train]

The propriety of relationships and the lessons of love are not a subject of classroom discussion. The physiology and anatomy of reproduction and the legislation and application of the law are certainly appropriate for a school setting, it is when we cross into morality and social acceptability that we get into territory that is simply unnecessary for our schools to traverse. Why is it so seemingly difficult for so many to grasp the natural right of conscience and the proper means to protect it?

-a-train

[Guest DeborahC]

Depends on what the "sex education" is ... if I were a parent, I'd pay close attention.

I agree with everyone here that says if it's teaching children what is and is not appropriate touching at that age, I'm all for it. Anything else should be left to the parents, imo.

[a-train]

Depends on what the "sex education" is ... if I were a parent, I'd pay close attention.

I agree with everyone here that says if it's teaching children what is and is not appropriate touching at that age, I'm all for it. Anything else should be left to the parents, imo.

Propriety is difficult and again unnecessary. I would teach the law. If the law is that persons over the age of 18 who touch those under that age are subject to imprisonment, let that be taught and let it be enough.

-a-train

[Guest DeborahC]

Propriety is difficult and again unnecessary. I would teach the law. If the law is that persons over the age of 18 who touch those under that age are subject to imprisonment, let that be taught and let it be enough.

-a-train

Well, seems to me "the law" is what everyone is up in arms about when it comes to Gay Marriage. So if you're saying you'd teach Gay Marriage is good (if the law passes) then I have to disagree with you.

Propriety is teaching what is socially acceptable.

I'm not sure how you view what I said as propriety ::chuckling::

but hey.. I agree with the last part of your statement.

[Elgama]

As long as you do Family Home Evening and keep the communication lines open - children should be safe enough learning different ideas, its easy enough to explain to a child we are Latter Day Saints that makes us different and we have knowledge others don't have.

Children learn and hear plenty of false and suspect things at school anyway, through English, History and Biology - like my favourite teachers I hung around with as an adult said there were moments they made it up.

Done properly school has always been backed up at home, when its not backed up at home its better than nothing.

-Charley

[Wingnut]

Well, seems to me "the law" is what everyone is up in arms about when it comes to Gay Marriage. So if you're saying you'd teach Gay Marriage is good (if the law passes) then I have to disagree with you.

Propriety is teaching what is socially acceptable.

I'm not sure how you view what I said as propriety ::chuckling::

but hey.. I agree with the last part of your statement.

The law doesn't teach or dictate what is good or bad. It teaches what is legal or not. When it comes to gay marriage, it wouldn't definte it as "good" but rather as "legal."

[ruthiechan]

One must also remember that pedophiles, or whoever is sexually abusing a child leads them to it nice and slow. They become the child's friend, tickling leads to linger which leads to more. Sometimes the abuser masturbates in front of the child and/or shows the child child pornography to show the kid that others are doing this too. And when they are being sexually taken advantage of they think it's normal, okay, and most of all IT FEELS GOOD.

When the child figures out that this was wrong they will think that something is wrong with them because they liked it. It is difficult for a child to understand that just because it feels good does not mean it's good. It is difficult to teach the child that they haven't done anything that it was only the adult's fault because after all that child "willingly" participated.

Usually a sexually abused child is romanced into it and doesn't know that was is happening to them is wrong until someone tells them, and more often than not when they tell a parent, the parent becomes ANGRY, and scares the child making them believe that they were at fault. And sometimes the child is too scared to tell anyone, or are threatened, but especially in the case of small children it's a secret romance.

When we think of sex education we think of hot lovin' and condoms, not reproduction or how to protect yourself from predators etc. So, it depends on what is going to be taught that makes sex ed something bad or good or neutral in a kindergarten setting.

PS: I knew a gal in high school who was sexually abused by a family member from the time she was four years old! And was told never to tell anyone otherwise they'd take her away from her whole family. I felt so bad for her. Thankfully she is now happily married and just had a baby boy a few months ago!

[a-train]

So we want the schools to teach morality and we think even other children who are not our own should be taught morality, but it needs to be OUR morality. This is a double standard. Should schools make statements on the morality of plural marriage?

Certainly it would be wise to educate young children concerning the illegality of people touching them in private areas or engaging in sexual suggestion and/or conduct with them and to make them aware of predators regardless of the age of the malefactor.

Now, adultery and fornication are legal for the most part in our country. Should we emphasize that and tell kids that as a result it is moral? Certainly not.

That is the difference between the law and morality. They don't actually agree because both are disputed. The law however is what it is and can be taught in the schools without speculation.

Now kids may get plenty or no help from mom and dad, but that is not the problem of the school. The rules of the school and the law of the land should be taught and upheld in school without prejudice and matters of morality left to the parents should be left untouched for better or for worse.

-a-train

[Elgama]

my school taught me all kind of morals - we were taught the importance of picking up litter, not smoking, to eat healthily, smiling and saying hello to people, cleaning up after myself, making amends when you do something to hurt someone. I still recall a lot of the catchy sayings from my primary (elementary) school headteacher and some more from my secondary school teachers.

So no I have no issue with schools teaching morals. A good one should teach the value of respect for other people, respect for yourself, the value of hardwork etc And yes I was taught about the positive and negative side of plural marriage at school, we learned all about how different people around the world lived. Probably why for me plural marriage is no big issue

Like I said in previous posts it should be backed up at home - its more important when its not

-Charley

Edited October 27, 2008 by Elgama

[WANDERER]

I believe the current policy here (public school/elementary school) is to have a parents education night on lessons...they get to preview the lessons before signing a consent form *yay or nay*. This makes sense...so that parents can follow it up on home with their own guidance if they give children permission to attend or are aware of what the classes consist of for other children and can provide their own guidance *or not* on the topic. It's done through four lessons a year by a specialist teacher. I'm fine with the way in which this is done. It's not intrusive for those families that do not wish their children to partake in it and the subjects are age appropriate *private and public behaviours and private and public body parts...really low level*. It's also a program iniated by the parent community of the school. Most kids go. Not a problem if they don't. I like the fact that it is negotiated by parents on behalf of their families and subject to their approval...NOT mandatory...but something that is provided as an extra upon their request. In my opinion a program like this should always be subject to individual parent approval. It's not that hard to do things this way and I can't understand why you wouldn't.

[hordak]

I think it depends on the info that is presented. I knew about conception (the biology part) from a very young age. If it is age appropriate there is nothing wrong with ditching the Stork story IMO

[Fiannan]

I think it goes against traditional psychology to expose children to sexuality well before their physiological and psychological mechanisms are prepared for them to understand it. I think this is merely the attempt to circumvent traditional morals and indoctrinate the young into a hedonistic view of life and reproduction.

Of course, whether one believes this, or in the Creator, the obvious conclusion is that it goes against basic human nature as well as the innate desire to protect children. If England and eventually the USA adopt such practices then an unintended consequence will result...people will seek something to anchor their beliefs in stronger than an ammoral government policy based on questionable assumptions. If the Christian faith is unwilling to take up the fight then people wil see that the only alternative is a religion that upholds traditional values and will fight to preserve tradition no matter how powerful the state is. That religion will be Islam.

Muslims wil either take over after the native peoples die out from hedonism or will grow and also convert many of the people seeking something better. It has happened in the past and will happen in the future.

Edited October 29, 2008 by pam
Has nothing to do with the subject and have had complaints from members from the UK

[Elgama]

I was influenced by the Contiuum Concept, and anthropology when I chose how to parent my children.

Some of the ideas within the contiuum concept are that children are more capable than we believe they are and by treating them as though they are fragile we actually create children that believe they are fragile - she describes a scene where a child is crawlling near a deep whole - he crawls to the end of it looks around, goes away comes back and never once falls in. She witnessed many similar things during her stay with a tribe in the Amazonian Jungle she noticed many such incidents, because the parents allow the baby to use their instincts they are good - children play with bows and arrows from about 5 and accidents are few and far between. I notice the difference in my children using the precepts, particularly my son who I used the precepts with more faithfully, and so do other people I remember my son climbing all over a frame in the playpark and flinging himself down the slide while one Mum of a child about 3 was standing at the top of the slide and her friend at the bottom - watched gob smacked asked me how old he was he was about 19 months at the time. My son can also use a vegetable knife with supervision (not that brave I do know other parents whose 2 year olds can slice bread without help) and he helps me chop veg(he is 2 next week),

Likewise with sex children who sleep in the same room as their parents learn about sex earlier because they have too - I was going to point out it was a similar arrangement to most biblical and probably Book of Mormon peoples. Otherwise they would be only children. It doesn't seem to give them any problems in fact they tend to follow the tribe/culture and their behaviours.

My favourite quote is:

“Our own system of trying to guess what or how much a child's mind can assimilate results in cross purposes, misunderstanding, disappointments, anger and a general loss of harmony.” Jean Liedloff - its a parents job to asses their childs ability and to teach to their abilities, and more importantly to set the example. My daughetr has a basic understanding of sex - due to a books she has of 4D Scans of babies it starts out with the sperm and the egg and she knows that happens when Mummys and Daddys hug

-Charley

[Fiannan]

I was going to point out it was a similar arrangement to most biblical and probably Book of Mormon peoples.

Not sure about that one. The Bible does discourage parents from letting their children see them naked -- not sure if the OT was talking about nudity in the home or "naked" as in in some sort of sexual activity though. I do know that children raised in nudist colonies tend to remain virgins longer and have a better understanding of sexuality once they are teens but I would assume that the British education stuff is dealing with more than "Here is what a naked man looks like and here is what a naked woman looks like.".

In Islam parents are encouraged to let their children sleep in the same room as the children but there are extreme limitations on what the children are allowed to witness -- so it is unlikely that children see their parents have sex. However, a friend of mine from Afghanistan was griping about western culture to me one time (most Muslims I know have little respect for "modern" western "values") and she said that most western women are terrified of pregnancy due to the way childbirth is presented on TV as well as the mystification of mom going off to the hospital if she is ready to give birth. However, in traditional societies young women can be with female relatives when they give birth but not young boys. This allows the young women to get a rather positive appreciation for pregnancy and childbirth.

Again, in respect to Britian and the people wanting to have this in the USA, what is the point of this sex education prior to the child being able to grasp abstract concepts? I suppose in England the goal is to get young people on birth control as well as accepting homosexual pairings as okay. Indoctrinate the child young and then you control his or her mental framework pretty well.