Make sure that your child's school consults you about the new RSE curriculum

[niledynodely]

In the coming year schools are likely to be introducing a new RSE curriculum to their pupils. Originally it was to be launched in September 2020 but as schools are legally obliged to consult parents they now don't have to introduce the new curriculum until the start of the summer term September 2021. It is worth parent's while ensuring that they are consulted about the contents of the new curriculum as there are some dubious resources out there. Here is a link to a review of the materials for those who would like to know more https://rsereview.org/ For parents who would like to know more about their rights these have been outlined by The Values Foundation https://values.foundation/ Here is a website with links to resources which are less likely to sexualise children https://rseauthentic.uk/

If you have any questions please ask away. I research this topic.

[niledynodely]

Here are some more links to and information about various RSE resources which have been created for our children:

It is worth noting that there is are significant differences between the law, which is sound, the guidance which is okay and the actual materials are sometimes very problematic. Unfortunately Relationships and Sex Education is no longer simply teaching children about periods.

Here are some links and resources if you would actually like to know what is going on:

See in particular pp.26-29 of the following book. www.transgendertrend.com/product/inclusive-relationships-and-sex-education-in-schools-rse/

If you check the Proud Trust's Sexual Health tool kit you will find 'the dice game' This is behind a pay wall but these are some of the contents: " ?Anus/penis: Sometimes called ?anal sex? this can be a pleasurable experience for the person inserting their penis and the person ?receiving? the penis in their anus. The internal clitoris and/or prostate gland can be stimulated through this kind of sex.?

?Anus/object: the anus can be pleasured by placing objects next to the anus or inside it. The anus responds to temperature, size and movement changes. It is important that objects used in sex are clean. Objects must be smooth, or have ridges, but must be retrievable!?

?Anus/mouth: sometimes called ?oral sex? or ?rimming?. It can be pleasurable for some people to experience giving and receiving oral sex to the anus. You can explore the anus with the tongue and lips by kissing, sucking and licking the area.?

?Anus/hands and fingers: you can touch, stroke or insert finger(s) into the anus ? this is called ?masturbation? or ?fingering.?

?Anus/vulva: some people enjoy pushing or rubbing their anus and vulva together as the warmth, pressure and moisture can be pleasurable.?

?Anus/anus: although direct anus-anus contact may be tricky to achieve, pushing anuses towards each other and buttocks against each other can be pleasurable. The warmth and intimacy of the contact could be enjoyable.?

The above Dice Game is for 13 year olds upwards.

The Proud Trust is substantially funded by our government.

Here is an organisation called The BigTalk which appears to be providing (along with many other organisations) very confusing talk about sex and gender: www.bigtalkeducation.co.uk/rse-information-and-support-for-schools/sex-gender/ Again the following book provides lots of information about the terrible stuff out there re: gender

www.transgendertrend.com/product/inclusive-relationships-and-sex-education-in-schools-rse/

Brook's traffic light tool normalises sexual intercourse under the age of 16 so for example if you look at this page it says that for the ages of 13 - 17 "consenting oral and/or penetrative sex with others of the same or opposite gender who are of similar age and developmental ability" is what they call a green behaviour i.e. totally fine. legacy.brook.org.uk/brook_tools/traffic/index.html?syn_partner=

Brook on masturbation www.brook.org.uk/your-life/masturbation/

Brook teaching young people about Anal sex www.brook.org.uk/your-life/anal-sex/

Underage sex is also normalised in a book written by two very mainstream sex ed advisors Alice Hoyle (Sex Education Forum) and Ester McGeeny from Brook) their book Great Relationships and Sex Education is described in the TES as "destined to be on every sex educators shelf" (or some such) so it is really mainstream.

It has activities for 13 year olds where they write down where it feels good to be touched and how the whole body is a potneial site of pleasure...it says "Emphasise that pleasure is a whole body experience that can involve all our senses whether we are experiencing pleasure through exercise, food, intimacy , playing music of having sex. Understanding what feels good in your own body can help you to maximise the enjoyable experience you have and communicate to others what you do and do not enjoy..." etc

They have activities where they sculpt genitals in playdoh and so on. (harmless I suppose but what a waste of time!)

A quote from the book where they discuss sex for 14 year olds upwards says things like:

"You may need to encourage participants to think broadly about all the different ways people have intimate and/or erotic experiences on their own and with others including kissing, hugging, different kinds of touch, mutual masturbation, sex using sex toys , etc. Prompt with questions such as: What about sex for older people? Young people? Sex for people with physical disabilities? Sex with someone of the same/ different gender? Sex on your own"

and then they end up making lists about some of the more extreme sexual practices that young people may have heard about...pupils are encouraged to avoid passing judgement.

If you go on to the evidence section of the Values Foundation Website (which you can find under the word 'Initiatives)' you will find some letters from parents which shows how devastating what has been happening is for children. values.foundation/ But actually there is just loads of information under this section. Really useful information. So yes click on evidence and then go on to the google drive.

Unfortunately RSE is no longer simply teaching our children about the birds and the bees.

OP?s posts: See all

[j.a.]

I think you?ve taken a wrong turn on the internet, the Victorian morality forums are over there, just next to the self-deluding echo chambers.

ETA - if you think under-aged sex is not already normalised in society in general then I have a bridge to sell you (good condition, partly used).

Simply ignoring the issue and pretending it isn?t happening has never, never worked. Your personal morality is one that has been on the wrong side of history for a long time.

[niledynodely]

Unfortunately, to the detriment of our children, you are right.

[j.a.]

Unfortunately, to the detriment of society in general, people like you fail to understand that you?re part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

I have two daughters, by the way.

You cannot expect to dictate to young people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. You can only educate and inform and be the best parent you can be, then cross your fingers and hope they don?t do anything too stupid.

Anything else is a fundamental - even wilful (and often religiously-inspired) misunderstanding of basic human nature.

[keano77]

... You can only educate and inform ...

I don?t think to OP is disagreeing with this j.a.

Rather the OP?s concern appears to be who is doing the educating and informing and what agendas is being followed.

The gender wars are creating difficulties because of vocal minorities trying to enforce their views on others. An example here would be the problems Stonewall has encountered with an alleged anti-women trans policy.

Parents have a right to know who is preparing these ?educational? texts and to decide if they consider them appropriate for their children.

[pk]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... You can only educate and inform ...

>

> I don?t think to OP is disagreeing with this j.a.

>

the op thinks 'Unfortunately Relationships and Sex Education is no longer simply teaching children about periods.' and 'the birds and the bees'

so i think that they're not looking for much by way of education or information but plenty of denial as to the reality of the world that most of us now live in, where most educated and informed people are tolerant of others' sexual choices

[j.a.]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... You can only educate and inform ...

>

> I don?t think to OP is disagreeing with this j.a.

The OP has openly stated an opposition to pre-marital sex, and believes that teenagers should be actively discouraged from it. Good luck with that, frankly. The realpolitik is that - where sex is concerned - education and information mean people are more likely to make good decisions (remember we?re talking about adolescents here!). The OP prefers the kind of education that prevents sexual activity at all. That is both naive and dangerous, and far more likely to result in trouble.

>

> Rather the OP?s concern appears to be who is doing

> the educating and informing and what agendas is

> being followed.

>

> The gender wars are creating difficulties because

> of vocal minorities trying to enforce their views

> on others. An example here would be the problems

> Stonewall has encountered with an alleged

> anti-women trans policy.

>

> Parents have a right to know who is preparing

> these ?educational? texts and to decide if they

> consider them appropriate for their children.

I?m not getting into a discussion regarding trans issues; to me that?s something entirely separate and it?s own total can of worms.

I?m more concerned by the idea that we should move basic sexual education back by fifty years to a point where ?the birds and bees? is all a rampantly hormonal teenager with access to the internet is considered to be worthy of knowing.

There?s literally nothing in the OP?s post of 11:25am that I find disturbing, and the idea that you can shield under-16?s from this in the internet age is bluntly stupid.

I guess I?m just astonished to find such views still exist, but I suppose I shouldn?t be.

As for the Values Foundation? Well, organised religion strikes again...

[keano77]

Fair point pk. There?s nothing wrong with being tolerant of others? sexual choices.

But it not that simple is it?

Some communities - Muslims, Christians, Jews etc - might consider some of the practices wrong and object to their children being exposed to such material. We saw this issue in Handsworth in Birmingham recently.

At the end of the day it is social engineering and what is educating and informing from the perspective of secular liberal parents differs from those parents with different religious persuasions.

Presumably the lessons are not compulsory and parents can withdraw their children from such classes if they wish?

[keano77]

j.a. I only mentioned the gender wars/trans issue because it?s about relationships and sexual education, not just the mechanics of sex.

But agree that it?s a can of worms

[j.a.]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fair point pk. There?s nothing wrong with being

> tolerant of others? sexual choices.

>

> But it not that simple is it?

It really is that simple.

>

> Some communities - Muslims, Christians, Jews etc -

> might consider some of the practices wrong and

> object to their children being exposed to such

> material. We saw this issue in Handsworth in

> Birmingham recently.

Excellent example, because the prime instigators of those protests didn?t even have kids at that school, and I suggest their motives were based more on their personal morality/views on how the world should be, and less on ?won?t somebody think of the children!?.

I?m also going to suggest that if someone has religiously based opinions on how they want their children educated, then there are faith schools available for them to attend.

> At the end of the day it is social engineering and

> what is educating and informing from the

> perspective of secular liberal parents differs

> from those parents with different religious

> persuasions.

>

Again, if your religion is the dominant concern in your kids education, then go to a faith school, or go and live somewhere that more closely aligns with your beliefs.

> Presumably the lessons are not compulsory and

> parents can withdraw their children from such

> classes if they wish?

One would hope so. Simplest solution for those who want to avail themselves of a state-sponsored education but then stick their fingers in their ears when something that conflicts with their intolerant moral code rears it?s ugly head.

[j.a.]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> j.a. I only mentioned the gender wars/trans issue

> because it?s about relationships and sexual

> education, not just the mechanics of sex.

>

> But agree that it?s a can of worms

The mechanics of sex - and the avoidance of unwanted pregnancies and STD?s - are really important to understand, which I?m sure you?d agree with. This shouldn?t get conflates with the far more complex issues that society is only just starting to talk about. I think it?s important to remember that, and not allow a gender/culture war to undermine it.

[seenbeen]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... You can only educate and inform ...

>

> I don?t think to OP is disagreeing with this j.a.

>

> Rather the OP?s concern appears to be who is doing

> the educating and informing and what agendas is

> being followed.

>

> The gender wars are creating difficulties because

> of vocal minorities trying to enforce their views

> on others. An example here would be the problems

> Stonewall has encountered with an alleged

> anti-women trans policy.

>

> Parents have a right to know who is preparing

> these ?educational? texts and to decide if they

> consider them appropriate for their children.

From the diabolical scenes in Birmingham and Nottingham last year I don't think the OP and 'his' ilk care who is doing the educating. The 'No Outsiders' materials dealt with non-traditional families- i.e informing young children that some families have 2 mums or 2 dads which is reality.

If you have had personal experience of the utter misery caused to a young child who is subjected to the intolerance of the classmates (and some teachers) have when the family set-up becomes public knowledge- and it will- (and the medieval mind-set will jump all over it!) you will be dismayed to hear that the programme for RSE is postponed- WHY? Can't a letter be sent out?

As far as I can see the postponement is a cop-out because the government do not want to deal with the so-called people of 'faith'....too right it's BLIND faith- blind to humanity and all its richness.

For too long 'faith' institutions (they hardly deserve being called schools) have opted out of discussing equality for LGBT+ and the homophobia amongst 17-18 year olds has been ingrained since birth!

[keano77]

There?s no doubt in my mind that the demonstrations in Birmingham were ?hijacked? by activists.

Maybe the government is right to postpone the RSE implementation. The intention is/was to make the lessons compulsory. If schools are obliged to consult parents will the ?curriculum? be tailored to different communities - ie different versions in different areas?

I don?t know, just wondering

[niledynodely]

keano 77 you are doing a better job than me highlighting what the issues are. Parents cannot realistically withdraw their children from any of this as it is integrated into the curriculum across a range of subjects. A great deal of this material would come under relationships education which they definitely can't withdraw their children from (although a judicial review is happening about this). They can withdraw their children theoretically from sex ed - but sex ed is incorporated into health ed so actually they cannot and I have heard the Sex Education Forum quite explicitly say that children cannot avoid any of the programme.

The point is that it is about indoctrination and if this indoctrination is in keeping with the parent's views fine and good. But for a minority of parents it is not in keeping with our views (I do not want my child to think anal sex is okay, or that the primary purpose of sex is pleasure or that porn is alright in moderation for example) and there is little we can do. Democratic rights don't seem to cover those with more traditional views. One rather gets the feeling that they think such parents should have no influence over their children.

[j.a.]

Nidelynodely - stop blaming the schools for stuff that is your responsibility.

If you want to indoctrinate your kids in such a manner then you?re free to do so as a parent; that?s your right.

You?re literally blaming other people for things that are your problem to handle. Home school your kids or send them to a Catholic school.

I find your insistence that everyone else fall in line with your antiquated sense of right and wrong frankly appalling.

[keano77]

...But for a minority of parents it is not in keeping with our views...

Is it a minority niledynodely? Or is it the silent majority who are uncomfortable with this?

This is the problem the government has. The proponents are loud and vocal and will ?cancel? or accuse those who don?t agree with hate crimes etc

The matter, rightly or wrongly, has become wrapped up in the culture/gender issue.

[j.a.]

Keano, I feel that?s something of a straw man argument.

The core of my issue with the OP?s stance is that they want to revert to a style of sex education which was demonstrated to be ineffective 30 years ago. It?s got nothing to do with trans or LGBTQ. I?m objecting to a view of sexual development which is not only out of date but will actually cause harm.

Teenagers are roiling bags of hormones, too immature to understand the strong biological urges suddenly possessing them, and living now in a world where the internet can provide answers, but often wrong ones, or at least it?s easy for them to find the answer they ?want?. Add to this the ease with which they can view porn, and you have a vital necessity for responsible adults to engage with them on the basic subject of sexual education.

Boys especially need this, because they watch porn and think that?s what sex is, which it isn?t.

It?s vitally important not to conflate this with the culture/gender issue. It?s much more basic than that. Communication and honesty is the only way to get a teenager to trust you - and even that may not always work - and parents need to step up to the plate.

The OP is openly stating that anything past basic physical explanations should not be taught in schools. I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Perhaps in the 80?s you might?ve been able to claim that, but the rise of the web means that if we don?t tell our kids the truth, they?ll find a version of it out there somewhere.

[seenbeen]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There?s no doubt in my mind that the

> demonstrations in Birmingham were ?hijacked? by

> activists.

>

> Maybe the government is right to postpone the RSE

> implementation. The intention is/was to make the

> lessons compulsory. If schools are obliged to

> consult parents will the ?curriculum? be tailored

> to different communities - ie different versions

> in different areas?

>

> I don?t know, just wondering

The demos were hijacked by muslims and fundamental christians (no doubt with ideas akin to the westboro' baptist church!)who had no children at the schools so they found out about the 'No Outsiders' from someone in the school obviously.

The law of the land is crystal clear - there is NO place for hiding behind 'faith' and for too long the 'faith' communities have opted out and would DENY the hard-won rights of the LGBT+ PEOPLE and thereby perpetuate the persecution.

After all- if it wasn't for Alan Turing- a gay man- where would be now?

When you have a 16 year old muslim in your class saying out loud 'all gays should be stoned to death' in the 21st century then you realise it is time for dragging 'faith' into the 21st century....and stop pandering to their 6th century ideology mainly for catching votes!

And how can you inform children by using a different version of....'Jamie has 2 daddies' or Matthew has 2 mummies'? What different version?

[keano77]

I understand j.a. I?m neutral on this and hopefully can see both sides.

Seenbeen. Yes, a horrible example of bigotry.

While dad and mum, 2 daddies, 2 mummies, one parent etc is perfectly fine it starts getting complicated with non-binary, fluid, undecided and so on who/which would all need to be represented.

So, back to the original point of this thread - what is included, who is including it and why and what do parents think about it.

[j.a.]

The original point of this thread was for the OP to try and persuade people that sex education should go back to 1977. I think we can all agree that?s very wrong.

In terms of the wider issues you?ve mentioned, I?m not sure I?m ready to have that discussion online. As Seenbeen points out, there are some violent bigots that have been given space to vent their appalling views under the cover of tolerance, which is something I hold a strong opposing view to.

At the same time I recognise that there are positions and opinions on topics about which I don?t feel qualified to comment. I?m seeing/hearing a lot through the eyes of my kids, and doing my best not to jump to any conclusions in one way or another. I feel there are some things which must be carefully considered and debated widely, and I do despair of those who insist they should be agreed with ?immediately?, as it were. Some things require wide ranging discussion.

[EDguy89]

niledynodely Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> (I

> do not want my child to think anal sex is okay, or

> that the primary purpose of sex is pleasure or

> that porn is alright in moderation for example)

My teenage years weren't too long ago and I don't imagine there's been some massive radical shift where kids are being taught to just have sex with anyone because it feels good. It's better to demystify the subject of sex with kids and be open and honest and allow them to ask any questions without being shamed.

Do you really think their teachers are getting up in front of their students and saying "Anal sex is fine, kids. It's God's loophole. Doesn't count if it's in the butt! Save yourself till marriage, but till then..."

I mean, if definitions of an act in a book are bad enough for you to get concerned over, then I suggest we ban words like "kill", "maim", and "assault". Because as we all know, now that the kids know what a word means, they'll do it without a second thought. Everytime.

[tiddles]

.

[TE44]

I would suggest a dice game with your 13yr old children, invite your friends to let them see how open minded you are so 2020. Who knows with everything so open and moved on, and we know its nothing to kids these days with internrt porn etc who knows the age of consent may be needing reviewed.

I cannot believe there is no concern over some of the content for children. Its ridiculous. If parents are happy to have there kids playing a game like the dice game, I would say, buy it yourself for ?75 and teach yourself whatever educational lessons you pick up from it.

Thanks Niledynodely. Its good to know people are making people aware of this weird shit. I can't imagine why 13yr old need to discuss retrievable objects in the anus. Children who have/are being abused, hearing some of these suggestions for conversations may feel confused further by there own feeling of sexuality which may be very different from children who have not encountered sexual abuse. There is room for change and more openess but this should be done very carefully and with thought for all differences. Do we really need children to be put into situations where they are seen as open/bigoted if they dont wish to speak nor hear about what people want to do with there tongues and an anus.

Since this was posted in family room I have been speaking with family and friends and I've not met one person that thinks this is appropriate or helpful for children.

[snowy]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would suggest a dice game with your 13yr old

> children, invite your friends to let them see how

> open minded you are so 2020. Who knows with

> everything so open and moved on, and we know its

> nothing to kids these days with internrt porn etc

> who knows the age of consent may be needing

> reviewed.

> I cannot believe there is no concern over some of

> the content for children. Its ridiculous. If

> parents are happy to have there kids playing a

> game like the dice game, I would say, buy it

> yourself for ?75 and teach yourself whatever

> educational lessons you pick up from it.

> Thanks Niledynodely. Its good to know people are

> making people aware of this weird shit. I can't

> imagine why 13yr old need to discuss retrievable

> objects in the anus. Children who have/are being

> abused, hearing some of these suggestions for

> conversations may feel confused further by there

> own feeling of sexuality which may be very

> different from children who have not encountered

> sexual abuse. There is room for change and more

> openess but this should be done very carefully and

> with thought for all differences. Do we really

> need children to be put into situations where they

> are seen as open/bigoted if they dont wish to

> speak nor hear about what people want to do with

> there tongues and an anus.

> Since this was posted in family room I have been

> speaking with family and friends and I've not met

> one person that thinks this is appropriate or

> helpful for children.

Judging by your critical analysis* you really should take an A Level in media studies.

*sorry but the OP started that