Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it should be compulsory for a few reasons: 1) It's important to have accurate, consistent information; 2) This can fit with the teaching/discussion parents give at home (just as with other subjects); 3) Children get so much from the internet now that good school-based education can help guide what they see online; 4) Children often find it embarrassing having 'the talk' with and asking questions of parents; 5) For some parents it might just improve their own education on the subject. " 
I also think teaching children about relationships should be part of the curriculum from the start. Basic things like friendship, consent etc and this can build towards more complex sex eduction.
We had no problem discussing sex with our children . Not all parents have the confidence or knowledge to do so.
Nita | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it should be compulsory for a few reasons: 1) It's important to have accurate, consistent information; 2) This can fit with the teaching/discussion parents give at home (just as with other subjects); 3) Children get so much from the internet now that good school-based education can help guide what they see online; 4) Children often find it embarrassing having 'the talk' with and asking questions of parents; 5) For some parents it might just improve their own education on the subject. " After what I’ve encountered recently, number 5 most definitely | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the mother of an 11 year old girl i agree that school should provide sex ed. I’m a very open and relaxed mama - we have an open ended talk about sex and periods and emotions and hormones. Nothing graphic or TMI. Just enough to give her a grounded idea. We pick up the conversation in stages. It embarrasses her greatly but it’s important to me that she doesn’t rely on the playground for her knowledge. " Playground knowledge is something that really is unhelpful | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember our sex Ed lessons being very basic, the best one we ever had was when one of the girls in our group ended up pregnant and our childcare teacher sat us down and we all had a very open discussion. Kids are confronted with sex at a very early age, and yes should be taught age appropriate. So many parents can’t talk openly to their children so I don’t think you should be able to withdraw your child from the lesson. But their does need more emphasis on it being something that’s done in a relationship rather than give your virginity to the first person that shows an interest x " There is a huge emphasis on this at key stage 2, however the couple featured in the video aren’t married. Therefore some children are being withdrawn due to parent’s religious and moral beliefs  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it should be compulsory for a few reasons: 1) It's important to have accurate, consistent information; 2) This can fit with the teaching/discussion parents give at home (just as with other subjects); 3) Children get so much from the internet now that good school-based education can help guide what they see online; 4) Children often find it embarrassing having 'the talk' with and asking questions of parents; 5) For some parents it might just improve their own education on the subject.
I also think teaching children about relationships should be part of the curriculum from the start. Basic things like friendship, consent etc and this can build towards more complex sex eduction.
We had no problem discussing sex with our children . Not all parents have the confidence or knowledge to do so.
Nita"This is taught throughout primary education and is very important particularly for children who don’t receive this kind of education at home etc. It helps to break cycles | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it depends if you believe there's a moral aspect to sex. I think the right to raise your family according to your judgement is of fundamental importance and i would not want the state trying to impart its morals on my children. " This is interesting, how do you think the state should teach children about sex and relationships? What morals do you think would be taught that wouldn’t be appropriate? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it should be compulsory for a few reasons: 1) It's important to have accurate, consistent information; 2) This can fit with the teaching/discussion parents give at home (just as with other subjects); 3) Children get so much from the internet now that good school-based education can help guide what they see online; 4) Children often find it embarrassing having 'the talk' with and asking questions of parents; 5) For some parents it might just improve their own education on the subject.
I also think teaching children about relationships should be part of the curriculum from the start. Basic things like friendship, consent etc and this can build towards more complex sex eduction.
We had no problem discussing sex with our children . Not all parents have the confidence or knowledge to do so.
Nita
This is taught throughout primary education and is very important particularly for children who don’t receive this kind of education at home etc. It helps to break cycles "That's good to know. I certainly wasn't when my daughter was in primary school. Nita | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it depends if you believe there's a moral aspect to sex. I think the right to raise your family according to your judgement is of fundamental importance and i would not want the state trying to impart its morals on my children. This is interesting, how do you think the state should teach children about sex and relationships? What morals do you think would be taught that wouldn’t be appropriate? "I'm not arguing against sex education as long as parents can opt out if they wish. My point is that you can never entirely divorce sex from its context, that context context contains moral judgements. These can be major (e.g. what should one do if contraception fails) to minor (e.g. can i fuck my best friends boy or girlfriend if they are game). I personally don't want the state engaging with my children on this kind of subject. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it depends if you believe there's a moral aspect to sex. I think the right to raise your family according to your judgement is of fundamental importance and i would not want the state trying to impart its morals on my children. This is interesting, how do you think the state should teach children about sex and relationships? What morals do you think would be taught that wouldn’t be appropriate?
I'm not arguing against sex education as long as parents can opt out if they wish. My point is that you can never entirely divorce sex from its context, that context context contains moral judgements. These can be major (e.g. what should one do if contraception fails) to minor (e.g. can i fuck my best friends boy or girlfriend if they are game). I personally don't want the state engaging with my children on this kind of subject."Yes for some parents contraception is an issue never mind what to do if it fails. The basics is one thing, but there is the potential to end up covering all sorts of moral dilemmas | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember our sex Ed lessons being very basic, the best one we ever had was when one of the girls in our group ended up pregnant and our childcare teacher sat us down and we all had a very open discussion. Kids are confronted with sex at a very early age, and yes should be taught age appropriate. So many parents can’t talk openly to their children so I don’t think you should be able to withdraw your child from the lesson. But their does need more emphasis on it being something that’s done in a relationship rather than give your virginity to the first person that shows an interest x "
I think it should be compulsory. Relationship advice would be good too. I think they need more sex ed than we got, just because the internet has porn everywhere. So they need to be taught that it's ok to say no and it's not (always) like in porn. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember our sex Ed lessons being very basic, the best one we ever had was when one of the girls in our group ended up pregnant and our childcare teacher sat us down and we all had a very open discussion. Kids are confronted with sex at a very early age, and yes should be taught age appropriate. So many parents can’t talk openly to their children so I don’t think you should be able to withdraw your child from the lesson. But their does need more emphasis on it being something that’s done in a relationship rather than give your virginity to the first person that shows an interest x
I think it should be compulsory. Relationship advice would be good too. I think they need more sex ed than we got, just because the internet has porn everywhere. So they need to be taught that it's ok to say no and it's not (always) like in porn. "Yes, it’s ok teaching them how, but really needs to emphasise why x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relationship advice would be good too. I think they need more sex ed than we got, just because the internet has porn everywhere. So they need to be taught that it's ok to say no and it's not (always) like in porn. " This! ALso when learning about relationships, kids will (hopefully) learn and understand respect for others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like all of the children to be equal and share the same knowledge. It should be taught from an earlier age, age appropriately. If it's universal then children moving schools have it, as well as people from families that disapprove of some relationship types or life issues." So basically you want to use the state to force your point of view on families that disagree with you 
At least you are honest about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember our sex Ed lessons being very basic, the best one we ever had was when one of the girls in our group ended up pregnant and our childcare teacher sat us down and we all had a very open discussion. Kids are confronted with sex at a very early age, and yes should be taught age appropriate. So many parents can’t talk openly to their children so I don’t think you should be able to withdraw your child from the lesson. But their does need more emphasis on it being something that’s done in a relationship rather than give your virginity to the first person that shows an interest x
I think it should be compulsory. Relationship advice would be good too. I think they need more sex ed than we got, just because the internet has porn everywhere. So they need to be taught that it's ok to say no and it's not (always) like in porn. "Yes they see so much that just isn’t reality and this leads to unrealistic expectations. This can cause low self esteem etc they need to understand the things they are seeing are the exception not the rule. I try and liken things to what happens in action movies etc as they see more easily that it’s fictitious. Real ppl can’t do the things that the characters are able to do. I want my children to have realistic expectations and not think there is something wrong with them because they think porn is reality | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relationship advice would be good too. I think they need more sex ed than we got, just because the internet has porn everywhere. So they need to be taught that it's ok to say no and it's not (always) like in porn. This! ALso when learning about relationships, kids will (hopefully) learn and understand respect for others. "And respect for themselves, there is an emphasis on this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like all of the children to be equal and share the same knowledge. It should be taught from an earlier age, age appropriately. If it's universal then children moving schools have it, as well as people from families that disapprove of some relationship types or life issues. So basically you want to use the state to force your point of view on families that disagree with you
At least you are honest about it."Yes. Why not? Having a compulsory education system is the state imposing its views on families who disagree with it. Any society has to decide what basic rights a child has that the child's parents cannot override. Parents don't own their children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like all of the children to be equal and share the same knowledge. It should be taught from an earlier age, age appropriately. If it's universal then children moving schools have it, as well as people from families that disapprove of some relationship types or life issues." This is a particular problem as parents withdraw children from the classes because of their own religious and moral beliefs. I respect their morals and religious beliefs however I also think this can cause divide even in the classroom. The key stage 2 video shows an unmarried couple having a baby. Some ppl don’t want their children to see this as acceptable. The reality is in society ppl don’t always get married for various reasons. Despite the video showing the parents are in a loving long term relationship it’s still not what they want their children to see. Surely that is more important than them being married. I want my children to be accepting of different types of relationships not just societal norms. I hope this will let them be themselves and them not feel pressured to conform to something that isn’t right for them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it would be good for the parents to get the same sex ed classes. So they know what the kids were taught and be able to answer questions. Also to educate parents that have no clue!" There’s plenty of those about | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no issue with sex ed being taught in schools. My kids have me to come to if they need to know anything. It's always been that way. My eldest always comes to me for advice about such things and knows she can be open and honest. My youngest is quite different and I have to go to him and ask questions to see if he needs any guidance (special needs). It's very different with him but I'm still there for him and I've made it clear that he can talk to me. " That’s wonderful that you treat them as individuals in order to fulfill your role as a parent, your children are very lucky | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Currently Sex and relationship education (SRE) is compulsory from age 11 onwards. It involves teaching children about reproduction, sexuality and sexual health. It doesn’t promote early sexual activity or any particular sexual orientation. Some parts of sex and relationship education are compulsory - these are part of the national curriculum for science. Parents can withdraw their children from all other parts of sex and relationship education if they want. What are your views on not all elements being compulsory? Do you think age appropriate sex and relationship education should be compulsory for children in Key Stage 2 (8 - 11 year olds)? If parents choose to withdraw their children from the non compulsory elements how do you think this will impact them? Do you think the majority of parents are able to give sex and relationship education to their children if they withdraw them from the non compulsory elements? Would you withdraw them from the non compulsory elements?" I think talking about sex and children should be banned from Fab. Sick of seeing these posts tbh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like all of the children to be equal and share the same knowledge. It should be taught from an earlier age, age appropriately. If it's universal then children moving schools have it, as well as people from families that disapprove of some relationship types or life issues. So basically you want to use the state to force your point of view on families that disagree with you
At least you are honest about it.
Yes. Why not? Having a compulsory education system is the state imposing its views on families who disagree with it.
Any society has to decide what basic rights a child has that the child's parents cannot override. Parents don't own their children. "It comes as no surprise that those on the left are in favour of mass indocrination of children, what could possibly go wrong with that... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like all of the children to be equal and share the same knowledge. It should be taught from an earlier age, age appropriately. If it's universal then children moving schools have it, as well as people from families that disapprove of some relationship types or life issues. So basically you want to use the state to force your point of view on families that disagree with you
At least you are honest about it.
Yes. Why not? Having a compulsory education system is the state imposing its views on families who disagree with it.
Any society has to decide what basic rights a child has that the child's parents cannot override. Parents don't own their children.
It comes as no surprise that those on the left are in favour of mass indocrination of children, what could possibly go wrong with that... "So you believe parents should have the choice as to whether or not their children get an education? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like all of the children to be equal and share the same knowledge. It should be taught from an earlier age, age appropriately. If it's universal then children moving schools have it, as well as people from families that disapprove of some relationship types or life issues. This is a particular problem as parents withdraw children from the classes because of their own religious and moral beliefs. I respect their morals and religious beliefs however I also think this can cause divide even in the classroom. The key stage 2 video shows an unmarried couple having a baby. Some ppl don’t want their children to see this as acceptable. The reality is in society ppl don’t always get married for various reasons. Despite the video showing the parents are in a loving long term relationship it’s still not what they want their children to see. Surely that is more important than them being married. I want my children to be accepting of different types of relationships not just societal norms. I hope this will let them be themselves and them not feel pressured to conform to something that isn’t right for them "It's nothing to do with religion, it's just pure common sense. It's a fact that married couples are more stable than unmarried couples. It's a fact that, on average, children do better in a stable family. It's all very well that you want to show children a video of how great unmarried parents can be, but you don't want to show them the video of what happens when the family breaksdown. Your arguement is pure counterfactual and not in the least bit in the interests of the children. Its just a selfish arguement to make some adults feel better about their lifestyle choices. There's nothing cool or adult about people who shy away from commitment and responsibility. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like all of the children to be equal and share the same knowledge. It should be taught from an earlier age, age appropriately. If it's universal then children moving schools have it, as well as people from families that disapprove of some relationship types or life issues. So basically you want to use the state to force your point of view on families that disagree with you
At least you are honest about it.
Yes. Why not? Having a compulsory education system is the state imposing its views on families who disagree with it.
Any society has to decide what basic rights a child has that the child's parents cannot override. Parents don't own their children.
It comes as no surprise that those on the left are in favour of mass indocrination of children, what could possibly go wrong with that... "Is that not what you’re advocating? Children should only be born in wedlock? Which incidentally was actually the main focus of the video but it also showed that same sex couples and being unmarried isn’t a bad thing but a different way of doing things. Everyone is different | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like all of the children to be equal and share the same knowledge. It should be taught from an earlier age, age appropriately. If it's universal then children moving schools have it, as well as people from families that disapprove of some relationship types or life issues. So basically you want to use the state to force your point of view on families that disagree with you
At least you are honest about it.
Yes. Why not? Having a compulsory education system is the state imposing its views on families who disagree with it.
Any society has to decide what basic rights a child has that the child's parents cannot override. Parents don't own their children.
It comes as no surprise that those on the left are in favour of mass indocrination of children, what could possibly go wrong with that...
Is that not what you’re advocating? Children should only be born in wedlock? Which incidentally was actually the main focus of the video but it also showed that same sex couples and being unmarried isn’t a bad thing but a different way of doing things. Everyone is different "What does "everyone is different" mean on a practical level? I don't think you mean to say that there are ~7bn totally unique individuals on the planet and there is no commonality, no trends and nothing we can say about behaviour that is more or less likely to lead to good outcomes. What i advocate is a factual and rational approach to things. I didn't say all babies should be born in wedlock, i said they have a higher probability of better life outcomes if they are. You say "its not a bad thing to be unmarried" well it's reducing the probability of good life outcomes for the child, did they acknowledge that or not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think talking about sex and children should be banned from Fab. Sick of seeing these posts tbh" No one is forcing you to read these posts. If they don’t interest you then scroll past until you see a thread that does | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Currently Sex and relationship education (SRE) is compulsory from age 11 onwards. It involves teaching children about reproduction, sexuality and sexual health. It doesn’t promote early sexual activity or any particular sexual orientation. Some parts of sex and relationship education are compulsory - these are part of the national curriculum for science. Parents can withdraw their children from all other parts of sex and relationship education if they want. What are your views on not all elements being compulsory? Do you think age appropriate sex and relationship education should be compulsory for children in Key Stage 2 (8 - 11 year olds)? If parents choose to withdraw their children from the non compulsory elements how do you think this will impact them? Do you think the majority of parents are able to give sex and relationship education to their children if they withdraw them from the non compulsory elements? Would you withdraw them from the non compulsory elements? I think talking about sex and children should be banned from Fab. Sick of seeing these posts tbh" Sex education. Not what they are doing. Major difference my friend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it should be compulsory for a few reasons: 1) It's important to have accurate, consistent information; 2) This can fit with the teaching/discussion parents give at home (just as with other subjects); 3) Children get so much from the internet now that good school-based education can help guide what they see online; 4) Children often find it embarrassing having 'the talk' with and asking questions of parents; 5) For some parents it might just improve their own education on the subject.
I also think teaching children about relationships should be part of the curriculum from the start. Basic things like friendship, consent etc and this can build towards more complex sex eduction.
We had no problem discussing sex with our children . Not all parents have the confidence or knowledge to do so.
Nita" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like all of the children to be equal and share the same knowledge. It should be taught from an earlier age, age appropriately. If it's universal then children moving schools have it, as well as people from families that disapprove of some relationship types or life issues. So basically you want to use the state to force your point of view on families that disagree with you
At least you are honest about it.
Yes. Why not? Having a compulsory education system is the state imposing its views on families who disagree with it.
Any society has to decide what basic rights a child has that the child's parents cannot override. Parents don't own their children.
It comes as no surprise that those on the left are in favour of mass indocrination of children, what could possibly go wrong with that...
Is that not what you’re advocating? Children should only be born in wedlock? Which incidentally was actually the main focus of the video but it also showed that same sex couples and being unmarried isn’t a bad thing but a different way of doing things. Everyone is different
What does "everyone is different" mean on a practical level? I don't think you mean to say that there are ~7bn totally unique individuals on the planet and there is no commonality, no trends and nothing we can say about behaviour that is more or less likely to lead to good outcomes.
What i advocate is a factual and rational approach to things. I didn't say all babies should be born in wedlock, i said they have a higher probability of better life outcomes if they are. You say "its not a bad thing to be unmarried" well it's reducing the probability of good life outcomes for the child, did they acknowledge that or not?"I’m assuming as I have no way of knowing that you are referring to statistical data produced by those with an agenda. However as Disraeli said lies, damned lies and statistics, they are used to reflect a particular viewpoint. Given the right sample group you can make any theory credible. There are good and bad in all groups of parents if you take into account all factors not just married and unmarried. Research and statistics would have us believe the point you’re making | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also think they should be taught basic stuff at the first year of secondary school. Then the 4th year( don’t know the new terms) when hormones are gong mad they should be taugh the full story in explicit detail to explain what they are seeing on their phones is really about. Even if it means separating boy and girls in mixed schools. " They are taught the basics before secondary education however it isn’t compulsory | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also think they should be taught basic stuff at the first year of secondary school. Then the 4th year( don’t know the new terms) when hormones are gong mad they should be taugh the full story in explicit detail to explain what they are seeing on their phones is really about. Even if it means separating boy and girls in mixed schools. They are taught the basics before secondary education however it isn’t compulsory "I mean more then when mummies and daddies love each other very much stuff. I think it should be compulsory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also think they should be taught basic stuff at the first year of secondary school. Then the 4th year( don’t know the new terms) when hormones are gong mad they should be taugh the full story in explicit detail to explain what they are seeing on their phones is really about. Even if it means separating boy and girls in mixed schools. They are taught the basics before secondary education however it isn’t compulsory
I mean more then when mummies and daddies love each other very much stuff.
I think it should be compulsory. "Oh it’s more than that, the 3rd video shows a baby being born | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like all of the children to be equal and share the same knowledge. It should be taught from an earlier age, age appropriately. If it's universal then children moving schools have it, as well as people from families that disapprove of some relationship types or life issues. So basically you want to use the state to force your point of view on families that disagree with you
At least you are honest about it.
Yes. Why not? Having a compulsory education system is the state imposing its views on families who disagree with it.
Any society has to decide what basic rights a child has that the child's parents cannot override. Parents don't own their children.
It comes as no surprise that those on the left are in favour of mass indocrination of children, what could possibly go wrong with that...
Is that not what you’re advocating? Children should only be born in wedlock? Which incidentally was actually the main focus of the video but it also showed that same sex couples and being unmarried isn’t a bad thing but a different way of doing things. Everyone is different
What does "everyone is different" mean on a practical level? I don't think you mean to say that there are ~7bn totally unique individuals on the planet and there is no commonality, no trends and nothing we can say about behaviour that is more or less likely to lead to good outcomes.
What i advocate is a factual and rational approach to things. I didn't say all babies should be born in wedlock, i said they have a higher probability of better life outcomes if they are. You say "its not a bad thing to be unmarried" well it's reducing the probability of good life outcomes for the child, did they acknowledge that or not?
I’m assuming as I have no way of knowing that you are referring to statistical data produced by those with an agenda. However as Disraeli said lies, damned lies and statistics, they are used to reflect a particular viewpoint. Given the right sample group you can make any theory credible. There are good and bad in all groups of parents if you take into account all factors not just married and unmarried. Research and statistics would have us believe the point you’re making "So intuatively would you assume children come out better when their parents do break up? Would you assume those who promise to make a lifelong commitment and go through bonding rituals are no more likely to stay together than those who don't? Seriously, which part of those facts are surprising to you at the average level? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like all of the children to be equal and share the same knowledge. It should be taught from an earlier age, age appropriately. If it's universal then children moving schools have it, as well as people from families that disapprove of some relationship types or life issues. So basically you want to use the state to force your point of view on families that disagree with you
At least you are honest about it.
Yes. Why not? Having a compulsory education system is the state imposing its views on families who disagree with it.
Any society has to decide what basic rights a child has that the child's parents cannot override. Parents don't own their children.
It comes as no surprise that those on the left are in favour of mass indocrination of children, what could possibly go wrong with that...
Is that not what you’re advocating? Children should only be born in wedlock? Which incidentally was actually the main focus of the video but it also showed that same sex couples and being unmarried isn’t a bad thing but a different way of doing things. Everyone is different
What does "everyone is different" mean on a practical level? I don't think you mean to say that there are ~7bn totally unique individuals on the planet and there is no commonality, no trends and nothing we can say about behaviour that is more or less likely to lead to good outcomes.
What i advocate is a factual and rational approach to things. I didn't say all babies should be born in wedlock, i said they have a higher probability of better life outcomes if they are. You say "its not a bad thing to be unmarried" well it's reducing the probability of good life outcomes for the child, did they acknowledge that or not?
I’m assuming as I have no way of knowing that you are referring to statistical data produced by those with an agenda. However as Disraeli said lies, damned lies and statistics, they are used to reflect a particular viewpoint. Given the right sample group you can make any theory credible. There are good and bad in all groups of parents if you take into account all factors not just married and unmarried. Research and statistics would have us believe the point you’re making
So intuatively would you assume children come out better when their parents do break up? Would you assume those who promise to make a lifelong commitment and go through bonding rituals are no more likely to stay together than those who don't? Seriously, which part of those facts are surprising to you at the average level? "I try not to assume and look towards divorce rates, but again that’s not the whole picture. There are other factors involved in good outcomes for children. It’s an incredibly complex topic as with most things sociological and health and well being. The great life choices and life chances debate continues | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think they should talk to teen girls more about periods and sanitary products. They seem to skip some of that and many teen girls find it all a minefield. Especially if they’re too embarrassed to talk to family or friends." This is covered in key stage 2 now which is appropriate as some girls are starting puberty much earlier now. It gives them time to absorb and think about their options. However it isn’t compulsory | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think they should talk to teen girls more about periods and sanitary products. They seem to skip some of that and many teen girls find it all a minefield. Especially if they’re too embarrassed to talk to family or friends. This is covered in key stage 2 now which is appropriate as some girls are starting puberty much earlier now. It gives them time to absorb and think about their options. However it isn’t compulsory "To think it is 65 years (1953) since Chad Varah founded The Samaritans because a girl killed herself when she didn't understand her bleeding was menstruation. It should be compulsory. Yes, I'm one of those lefties that think sex education should be compulsory, cover all sorts of relationships and sexual orientations. I don't want more young people tormented and suicidal over how they feel and having no context or understanding, particularly when so much is pushed to them from untrustworthy sources. Married couples get divorced, unmarried couples stay together and vice versa. Some parents have relationships with their children that allow for open conversations and others don't. We don't say that parents who are maths-phobic should have the right to pull their children out of maths, why should it be OK for sex education? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Married couples get divorced, unmarried couples stay together and vice versa. Some parents have relationships with their children that allow for open conversations and others don't. We don't say that parents who are maths-phobic should have the right to pull their children out of maths, why should it be OK for sex education? " Your maths phobic statement at the start of the paragraph is why I'd keep my children as far away from such bad advice as possible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017)" I think this is the most important statistic of the lot. Though I would like to know how many were asked and the demographic. I think sex ed should be compulsory. Nita | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017) I think this is the most important statistic of the lot. Though I would like to know how many were asked and the demographic. I think sex ed should be compulsory. Nita" You’ll find the information in the methodology http://www.tht.org.uk/~/media/Files/Campaign/SRE%20Report%202016%20final.pdf | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated "Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means. "Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy "I don't think there's any real argument that the vast majority of parents want their kids to get sex education at school. The issue is whether the small minority who do object should be allowed to withdraw their kids from classes. I tend to be with you. Religious objections should not be grounds for withdrawal any more than it would for any other lesson. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy "I think I'd sum up my objections as "the truth is not politically correct enough for the state to tell". A lot of people liked kids being taught relationship advice but i have no idea how they think people could ever agree what advice they should be given. I'll give you an example. If you get married then you have a 43% chance of divorce and hopefully we can agree nobody gets married with the intention of divorcing. However that includes the divorce rates of second and third marriages which are much higher than first marriages. It turns out the average person doesn't really learn from their mistakes. So fix yourself on finding the right person and sticking to it and your risk is down to ~30%. Now get yourself a higher education and marry someone else with one and you're reducing your risk to ~20%. Finally if you are a man then look for a woman who is relatively low in neuroticism or if you are a woman then look for a man who is highly conscientious. Then you'll reduce your risk below 10%. That's just pure objective fact right there. Doesn't guarantee success, still a 10% risk of failure but what kind of idiot prefers a 43% risk to a 10% one. Of course all of that is far too politically incorrect to be taught in schools. So if they aren't teaching such facts then i would believe they are going to teach happy clappy bullshit instead. Something along the lines of 57% chance of success is good enough, do what you want and see what happens. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy
I don't think there's any real argument that the vast majority of parents want their kids to get sex education at school. The issue is whether the small minority who do object should be allowed to withdraw their kids from classes.
I tend to be with you. Religious objections should not be grounds for withdrawal any more than it would for any other lesson. "The objection is the form of sex education that those on the left want to promote. A lesson about the fact that sperm and eggs makes babies is not really a problem for anyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy
I think I'd sum up my objections as "the truth is not politically correct enough for the state to tell". A lot of people liked kids being taught relationship advice but i have no idea how they think people could ever agree what advice they should be given.
I'll give you an example.
If you get married then you have a 43% chance of divorce and hopefully we can agree nobody gets married with the intention of divorcing.
However that includes the divorce rates of second and third marriages which are much higher than first marriages. It turns out the average person doesn't really learn from their mistakes. So fix yourself on finding the right person and sticking to it and your risk is down to ~30%.
Now get yourself a higher education and marry someone else with one and you're reducing your risk to ~20%.
Finally if you are a man then look for a woman who is relatively low in neuroticism or if you are a woman then look for a man who is highly conscientious. Then you'll reduce your risk below 10%.
That's just pure objective fact right there. Doesn't guarantee success, still a 10% risk of failure but what kind of idiot prefers a 43% risk to a 10% one. Of course all of that is far too politically incorrect to be taught in schools. So if they aren't teaching such facts then i would believe they are going to teach happy clappy bullshit instead. Something along the lines of 57% chance of success is good enough, do what you want and see what happens. "As far as I am aware, sex education in schools teaches that being in a stable and fulfilling relationship relationship is a good thing, whilst recognising that everyone will be or can be in such relationships and that people who are not should not be demonised. That seems to me entirely reasonable. Can you link me to the survey about neuroticism and conscientiousness by the way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy
I don't think there's any real argument that the vast majority of parents want their kids to get sex education at school. The issue is whether the small minority who do object should be allowed to withdraw their kids from classes.
I tend to be with you. Religious objections should not be grounds for withdrawal any more than it would for any other lesson.
The objection is the form of sex education that those on the left want to promote. A lesson about the fact that sperm and eggs makes babies is not really a problem for anyone. "Have you actually read the guidelines on sex education in schools? Para 1. 21 "children should be taught the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up children". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy
I think I'd sum up my objections as "the truth is not politically correct enough for the state to tell". A lot of people liked kids being taught relationship advice but i have no idea how they think people could ever agree what advice they should be given.
I'll give you an example.
If you get married then you have a 43% chance of divorce and hopefully we can agree nobody gets married with the intention of divorcing.
However that includes the divorce rates of second and third marriages which are much higher than first marriages. It turns out the average person doesn't really learn from their mistakes. So fix yourself on finding the right person and sticking to it and your risk is down to ~30%.
Now get yourself a higher education and marry someone else with one and you're reducing your risk to ~20%.
Finally if you are a man then look for a woman who is relatively low in neuroticism or if you are a woman then look for a man who is highly conscientious. Then you'll reduce your risk below 10%.
That's just pure objective fact right there. Doesn't guarantee success, still a 10% risk of failure but what kind of idiot prefers a 43% risk to a 10% one. Of course all of that is far too politically incorrect to be taught in schools. So if they aren't teaching such facts then i would believe they are going to teach happy clappy bullshit instead. Something along the lines of 57% chance of success is good enough, do what you want and see what happens.
As far as I am aware, sex education in schools teaches that being in a stable and fulfilling relationship relationship is a good thing, whilst recognising that everyone will be or can be in such relationships and that people who are not should not be demonised. That seems to me entirely reasonable.
Can you link me to the survey about neuroticism and conscientiousness by the way. "High conscientiousness (i.e. don't marry deadbeat men): Dyrenforth et al (2010) "predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries" Lower neutoticism (i.e. avoid emotional fuckwits because they are never happy): Kelly & Conley (1987) "personality and compatibility" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy
I don't think there's any real argument that the vast majority of parents want their kids to get sex education at school. The issue is whether the small minority who do object should be allowed to withdraw their kids from classes.
I tend to be with you. Religious objections should not be grounds for withdrawal any more than it would for any other lesson.
The objection is the form of sex education that those on the left want to promote. A lesson about the fact that sperm and eggs makes babies is not really a problem for anyone.
Have you actually read the guidelines on sex education in schools? Para 1. 21 "children should be taught the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up children". "The devil is always in the detail. It's all very well saying "marriage is good" but you send a mixed message when you say "but other family types are also good". Nuance isn't a childs strong point. Besides it's not so much marriage that is good anyway, its making a planned commitment, in advance of the responsibility of parenting, to the the right type of person as i described above. Marriage just happens to be the strongest commitment. It's not a magic wand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy
I don't think there's any real argument that the vast majority of parents want their kids to get sex education at school. The issue is whether the small minority who do object should be allowed to withdraw their kids from classes.
I tend to be with you. Religious objections should not be grounds for withdrawal any more than it would for any other lesson.
The objection is the form of sex education that those on the left want to promote. A lesson about the fact that sperm and eggs makes babies is not really a problem for anyone.
Have you actually read the guidelines on sex education in schools? Para 1. 21 "children should be taught the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up children".
The devil is always in the detail. It's all very well saying "marriage is good" but you send a mixed message when you say "but other family types are also good". Nuance isn't a childs strong point. Besides it's not so much marriage that is good anyway, its making a planned commitment, in advance of the responsibility of parenting, to the the right type of person as i described above. Marriage just happens to be the strongest commitment. It's not a magic wand. "Can I gently sigh you actually read the guidelines. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy
I don't think there's any real argument that the vast majority of parents want their kids to get sex education at school. The issue is whether the small minority who do object should be allowed to withdraw their kids from classes.
I tend to be with you. Religious objections should not be grounds for withdrawal any more than it would for any other lesson.
The objection is the form of sex education that those on the left want to promote. A lesson about the fact that sperm and eggs makes babies is not really a problem for anyone.
Have you actually read the guidelines on sex education in schools? Para 1. 21 "children should be taught the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up children".
The devil is always in the detail. It's all very well saying "marriage is good" but you send a mixed message when you say "but other family types are also good". Nuance isn't a childs strong point. Besides it's not so much marriage that is good anyway, its making a planned commitment, in advance of the responsibility of parenting, to the the right type of person as i described above. Marriage just happens to be the strongest commitment. It's not a magic wand.
Can I gently sigh you actually read the guidelines. "I really don't care what they say, that's the theory - I'm talking about the actual content that gets delivered. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy
I don't think there's any real argument that the vast majority of parents want their kids to get sex education at school. The issue is whether the small minority who do object should be allowed to withdraw their kids from classes.
I tend to be with you. Religious objections should not be grounds for withdrawal any more than it would for any other lesson.
The objection is the form of sex education that those on the left want to promote. A lesson about the fact that sperm and eggs makes babies is not really a problem for anyone.
Have you actually read the guidelines on sex education in schools? Para 1. 21 "children should be taught the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up children".
The devil is always in the detail. It's all very well saying "marriage is good" but you send a mixed message when you say "but other family types are also good". Nuance isn't a childs strong point. Besides it's not so much marriage that is good anyway, its making a planned commitment, in advance of the responsibility of parenting, to the the right type of person as i described above. Marriage just happens to be the strongest commitment. It's not a magic wand.
Can I gently sigh you actually read the guidelines.
I really don't care what they say, that's the theory - I'm talking about the actual content that gets delivered. "If you have evidence that schools are not acting in accordance with the guidelines I suggest you take it up with your MP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy
I don't think there's any real argument that the vast majority of parents want their kids to get sex education at school. The issue is whether the small minority who do object should be allowed to withdraw their kids from classes.
I tend to be with you. Religious objections should not be grounds for withdrawal any more than it would for any other lesson.
The objection is the form of sex education that those on the left want to promote. A lesson about the fact that sperm and eggs makes babies is not really a problem for anyone.
Have you actually read the guidelines on sex education in schools? Para 1. 21 "children should be taught the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up children".
The devil is always in the detail. It's all very well saying "marriage is good" but you send a mixed message when you say "but other family types are also good". Nuance isn't a childs strong point. Besides it's not so much marriage that is good anyway, its making a planned commitment, in advance of the responsibility of parenting, to the the right type of person as i described above. Marriage just happens to be the strongest commitment. It's not a magic wand.
Can I gently sigh you actually read the guidelines.
I really don't care what they say, that's the theory - I'm talking about the actual content that gets delivered.
If you have evidence that schools are not acting in accordance with the guidelines I suggest you take it up with your MP."It's ok, i'd rather just opt my children out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy
I don't think there's any real argument that the vast majority of parents want their kids to get sex education at school. The issue is whether the small minority who do object should be allowed to withdraw their kids from classes.
I tend to be with you. Religious objections should not be grounds for withdrawal any more than it would for any other lesson.
The objection is the form of sex education that those on the left want to promote. A lesson about the fact that sperm and eggs makes babies is not really a problem for anyone.
Have you actually read the guidelines on sex education in schools? Para 1. 21 "children should be taught the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up children".
The devil is always in the detail. It's all very well saying "marriage is good" but you send a mixed message when you say "but other family types are also good". Nuance isn't a childs strong point. Besides it's not so much marriage that is good anyway, its making a planned commitment, in advance of the responsibility of parenting, to the the right type of person as i described above. Marriage just happens to be the strongest commitment. It's not a magic wand.
Can I gently sigh you actually read the guidelines.
I really don't care what they say, that's the theory - I'm talking about the actual content that gets delivered.
If you have evidence that schools are not acting in accordance with the guidelines I suggest you take it up with your MP.
It's ok, i'd rather just opt my children out. "That could be a problem when it becomes compulsory  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy
I don't think there's any real argument that the vast majority of parents want their kids to get sex education at school. The issue is whether the small minority who do object should be allowed to withdraw their kids from classes.
I tend to be with you. Religious objections should not be grounds for withdrawal any more than it would for any other lesson.
The objection is the form of sex education that those on the left want to promote. A lesson about the fact that sperm and eggs makes babies is not really a problem for anyone.
Have you actually read the guidelines on sex education in schools? Para 1. 21 "children should be taught the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up children".
The devil is always in the detail. It's all very well saying "marriage is good" but you send a mixed message when you say "but other family types are also good". Nuance isn't a childs strong point. Besides it's not so much marriage that is good anyway, its making a planned commitment, in advance of the responsibility of parenting, to the the right type of person as i described above. Marriage just happens to be the strongest commitment. It's not a magic wand.
Can I gently sigh you actually read the guidelines.
I really don't care what they say, that's the theory - I'm talking about the actual content that gets delivered.
If you have evidence that schools are not acting in accordance with the guidelines I suggest you take it up with your MP.
It's ok, i'd rather just opt my children out.
That could be a problem when it becomes compulsory "According to the BBC report, compulsory refers to schools have to teach it, not that parents can't opt out. Currently it is only mandatory that council run schools have it, it is being expanded to all schools having to offer it. Not all children having to attend it. Quote: "Children will also be taught, at an appropriate age, about sex. But parents will still have the right to withdraw their children from these classes." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for your posts, the Department for Education have recently undertaken a call for evidence in order to assist in the changes to sex and relationship education. They are also looking at other sources to gain opinions on what should be delivered to our children. A recent YouGov poll for the PSHE association showed that 91% of parents surveyed believe all pupils should receive PSHE lessons to teach them about the risks of sexting, as well as other issues such as contact from strangers online. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% of their parents thought sex and relationship education should be compulsory in secondary schools. A Barnardo’s poll of 11-15 year olds also showed that 74% believed that children would be safer if they had age appropriate classes on SRE. A survey of 16- to 24-year-olds carried out by the Terence Higgins Trust in July 2016 showed that 99% of young people thought SRE should be mandatory in all schools; and 1 in 7 had not received this education (DFE, 2017). If they take these polls into consideration it looks increasingly likely that sex education will become compulsory for all children regardless of where they’re educated
Other than the first, these are all terribly worded to the point of being meaningless. It's the same trick as "well 66% of Americans want tigher gun control" - except they don't agree what gun control actually means.
Yes statistics and research can be difficult for some to interpret, the link I’ve posted above is an easy read. You might find that less wordy
I don't think there's any real argument that the vast majority of parents want their kids to get sex education at school. The issue is whether the small minority who do object should be allowed to withdraw their kids from classes.
I tend to be with you. Religious objections should not be grounds for withdrawal any more than it would for any other lesson.
The objection is the form of sex education that those on the left want to promote. A lesson about the fact that sperm and eggs makes babies is not really a problem for anyone.
Have you actually read the guidelines on sex education in schools? Para 1. 21 "children should be taught the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up children".
The devil is always in the detail. It's all very well saying "marriage is good" but you send a mixed message when you say "but other family types are also good". Nuance isn't a childs strong point. Besides it's not so much marriage that is good anyway, its making a planned commitment, in advance of the responsibility of parenting, to the the right type of person as i described above. Marriage just happens to be the strongest commitment. It's not a magic wand.
Can I gently sigh you actually read the guidelines.
I really don't care what they say, that's the theory - I'm talking about the actual content that gets delivered.
If you have evidence that schools are not acting in accordance with the guidelines I suggest you take it up with your MP.
It's ok, i'd rather just opt my children out.
That could be a problem when it becomes compulsory
According to the BBC report, compulsory refers to schools have to teach it, not that parents can't opt out. Currently it is only mandatory that council run schools have it, it is being expanded to all schools having to offer it. Not all children having to attend it.
Quote: "Children will also be taught, at an appropriate age, about sex. But parents will still have the right to withdraw their children from these classes.""What about those elements that are part of the curriculum will you be happy with that being taught? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What about those elements that are part of the curriculum will you be happy with that being taught? " Take it on a lesson by lesson basis. Sure i wouldn't opt of out periods / puberty / sexting / online safety. As a rule of thumb: objective facts - we're in. State sponsored opinion - we'll pass. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What about those elements that are part of the curriculum will you be happy with that being taught? Take it on a lesson by lesson basis. Sure i wouldn't opt of out periods / puberty / sexting / online safety. As a rule of thumb: objective facts - we're in. State sponsored opinion - we'll pass." So it’s just the relationship element you would have issue with? I think this is the element that causes the majority of parents to withdraw their children. It would be helpful if the relationship part was a separate entity to the other topics covered | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What about those elements that are part of the curriculum will you be happy with that being taught? Take it on a lesson by lesson basis. Sure i wouldn't opt of out periods / puberty / sexting / online safety. As a rule of thumb: objective facts - we're in. State sponsored opinion - we'll pass. So it’s just the relationship element you would have issue with? I think this is the element that causes the majority of parents to withdraw their children. It would be helpful if the relationship part was a separate entity to the other topics covered "I have multiple issues with the context in which sex happens. But the normalisation of abortion is probably the biggest reason i don't want my kids in those 'lessons'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What about those elements that are part of the curriculum will you be happy with that being taught? Take it on a lesson by lesson basis. Sure i wouldn't opt of out periods / puberty / sexting / online safety. As a rule of thumb: objective facts - we're in. State sponsored opinion - we'll pass. So it’s just the relationship element you would have issue with? I think this is the element that causes the majority of parents to withdraw their children. It would be helpful if the relationship part was a separate entity to the other topics covered
I have multiple issues with the context in which sex happens. But the normalisation of abortion is probably the biggest reason i don't want my kids in those 'lessons'. "I can’t really add anything constructive on how the topic of abortion is covered in school. I wouldn’t want my children considering it to be a form of contraception but I’d want them to be given factual non biased information. I have my opinion on abortion but as with most things I have to let them form their own opinion. It’s my job as a parent to make sure they have factual information to form their own opinions. I also teach them that their opinion is right for them but not always correct or what others believe. Parenting is hard | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What about those elements that are part of the curriculum will you be happy with that being taught? Take it on a lesson by lesson basis. Sure i wouldn't opt of out periods / puberty / sexting / online safety. As a rule of thumb: objective facts - we're in. State sponsored opinion - we'll pass. So it’s just the relationship element you would have issue with? I think this is the element that causes the majority of parents to withdraw their children. It would be helpful if the relationship part was a separate entity to the other topics covered
I have multiple issues with the context in which sex happens. But the normalisation of abortion is probably the biggest reason i don't want my kids in those 'lessons'.
I can’t really add anything constructive on how the topic of abortion is covered in school. I wouldn’t want my children considering it to be a form of contraception but I’d want them to be given factual non biased information. I have my opinion on abortion but as with most things I have to let them form their own opinion. It’s my job as a parent to make sure they have factual information to form their own opinions. I also teach them that their opinion is right for them but not always correct or what others believe. Parenting is hard "The thing is that kids are very easy to influence and you have to ask "where do my kids get their morals from?" It's simply not possible to let them work everything out for themselves at the appropriate age, there are far too many decisions that need to be made in the present. There are things you can't work out until you have a certain amount of life experience. If you're not influencing your kids then someone else is and the government (in my opinion) doesn't have any morals, it eventually bends to whatever voters find most convenient. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What about those elements that are part of the curriculum will you be happy with that being taught? Take it on a lesson by lesson basis. Sure i wouldn't opt of out periods / puberty / sexting / online safety. As a rule of thumb: objective facts - we're in. State sponsored opinion - we'll pass. So it’s just the relationship element you would have issue with? I think this is the element that causes the majority of parents to withdraw their children. It would be helpful if the relationship part was a separate entity to the other topics covered
I have multiple issues with the context in which sex happens. But the normalisation of abortion is probably the biggest reason i don't want my kids in those 'lessons'.
I can’t really add anything constructive on how the topic of abortion is covered in school. I wouldn’t want my children considering it to be a form of contraception but I’d want them to be given factual non biased information. I have my opinion on abortion but as with most things I have to let them form their own opinion. It’s my job as a parent to make sure they have factual information to form their own opinions. I also teach them that their opinion is right for them but not always correct or what others believe. Parenting is hard
The thing is that kids are very easy to influence and you have to ask "where do my kids get their morals from?" It's simply not possible to let them work everything out for themselves at the appropriate age, there are far too many decisions that need to be made in the present. There are things you can't work out until you have a certain amount of life experience. If you're not influencing your kids then someone else is and the government (in my opinion) doesn't have any morals, it eventually bends to whatever voters find most convenient. "‘The greater good’ isn’t always right morally I agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
