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

[j.a.]

NN is a fervent Christian who opposes feminism, writes for the Daily Mail and Conservative Home on subjects that include why men are getting a raw deal, and has a pinned video at the top of her twitter feed which comes dangerously close to homophobia.

It would be wise to understand that there isn?t a debate to be had here, NN?s views are entrenched (in the 19th century) and underpinned by religious belief. She isn?t looking for discussion, she just wants the entire sexual education system changed to better reflect her personal options. She seems obsessed with anal sex and seems to think there was no homophobia in the sixties, seventies and eighties (haha!).

This - ?You can find out more about the resources here: [rsereview.org]? is just another link to the Values Foundation, who are clearly working an agenda, shall we say? And yes, I?ve read the link in its entirety.

Mostly she?s just blaming the education system for something that she?s fully empowered as a parent to handle.

TE44 is an anti-vaxxer; nuff said.

[snowy]

I guess she?s here as no one is listening to her views on twitter - her account is a small bubble and some sock puppets.

She?s like a quasi academic version of Uncle glen, and even he?s more liberal than her on LGBT rights.

[j.a.]

Yeah, Glen is very pro-LGBT rights. Hates everyone else though...

NN also retweets racist Twitter accounts, by the way. She?s keen for everyone to know that George Floyd and Jacob Blake has criminal records, not sure why (obviously we know why).

[niledynodely]

I don't have a problem with teaching being part of the discussion as long as they respect what my values are when talking to my children.

Also I haven't seen ANY of the points I make mentioned in any of the resources and I have looked at a lot of the resources.

Most of the attitudes I have seen expressed online are that if parents have more 'conservative' views (as I do) then the role of the teacher is to save our children from the dreadful brainwashing which will happen at the hands of their parents.

But if teachers treat the sexual act with the care, love and respect that it deserves I am very happy for them to teach my children.

[niledynodely]

Yes please everybody DO look at the evidence provided by The Values Foundation. It is in a linked google drive when you click on evidence as MOPS deescribes. There is mountaings of it. Look in particular at the letters written by parents at how upset their children have been when exposed to particular materials. But look at all of it and inform yourselves.

[EDguy89]

niledynodely Wrote:

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

> Alternatively this sort of stuff, especially

> taught to them by their school teacher could

> actually just put them off sex for a good while.

> We do know young people are having a lot less sex

> than my generation (I was born in the 60s)

> although they are having a much higher proportion

> of anal sex.

>

> Finally the real issue is that parents values and

> beliefs should be respected in the education of

> their children.

You were so close. SO CLOSE to getting the point.

You did it miss it though because you were too busy thinking about children learning about anal sex. It seems to consume your life. You should probably see a therapist about it. You've got problems that not even Jesus could solve.

However, I would like you to go back to the point where you talked about younger generations having less sex. Is it perhaps because, oh I don't know, they were taught what sex is? The consequences of sex. Pregnancy, STDs, abuse, things to look out for, etc.

I'll give you the answer. It's yes.

[niledynodely]

j.a. Wrote:

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

> NN is a fervent Christian who opposes feminism,

> writes for the Daily Mail and Conservative Home on

> subjects that include why men are getting a raw

> deal, and has a pinned video at the top of her

> twitter feed which comes dangerously close to

> homophobia.

>

> It would be wise to understand that there isn?t a

> debate to be had here, NN?s views are entrenched

> (in the 19th century) and underpinned by religious

> belief. She isn?t looking for discussion, she just

> wants the entire sexual education system changed

> to better reflect her personal options. She seems

> obsessed with anal sex and seems to think there

> was no homophobia in the sixties, seventies and

> eighties (haha!).

>

> This - ?You can find out more about the resources

> here: ? is just another link to the Values

> Foundation, who are clearly working an agenda,

> shall we say? And yes, I?ve read the link in its

> entirety.

>

>

> Mostly she?s just blaming the education system for

> something that she?s fully empowered as a parent

> to handle.

>

> TE44 is an anti-vaxxer; nuff said.

Of course I think there used to be homophobia in the 60s, 70s and 80s - I don't know where you get that idea from. And there is still plenty of homophobia today.

But it isn't coming from me.

I don't think the approach we are taking in schools re: homophobia is the best one. There is a great deal of indoctrination going on and I would rather people accept gay people because they are accepting tolerant individuals than because they are indoctrinated. We are indoctrinating our children with ideologies rather than teaching them to be open minded and accepting. You only need to see the ire directed at people who hold conservative or traditional views to know that we are not teaching young people tolerance and acceptance.

I think there is an interesting discussion going on although I don't think you are part of it!

Someone raised the question of why I am here - it is because I want to know how other people think. I find on twitter you always end up talking to people who think the same as you so that isn't so valuable. Also there are not enough words for a decent discussion whereas here there are enough words.

I'm not obsessed with anal sex but RSE materials do seem to be. That is why I keep banging on about it.

Yes I would like to see the sex education system changed. For decades now we have had rising rates of sexually transmitted diseases, very high rates of teenage pregnancy, huge levels of mental health issues, and now we have young children confused about something as basic as their sex yet we keep doggedly ploughing on in the same direction. Yes I would really like to see it changed.

This isn't about my children. I just have this weird thing where I really care about the world I live in and future generations.

[ianr]

> For decades now we have had rising rates

> of sexually transmitted diseases,

> very high rates of teenage pregnancy,

The attached chart, "Relative changes in age-specific conception rates, England and Wales, 1990 to 2018", is from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/bulletins/conceptionstatistics/2018.

The full conception statistics spreadsheet for 2018 can be downloaded at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/datasets/conceptionstatisticsenglandandwalesreferencetables.

[j.a.]

niledynodely Wrote:

>

> Of course I think there used to be homophobia in

> the 60s, 70s and 80s - I don't know where you get

> that idea from.

From your own words - "And to be honest my generation grew up by and large perfectly accepting of gay people without having to go through some sort of programme in order to accept them."

That's absolute rubbish. Homophobia was rampant in your generation. You personally may not have been (though the pinned video on your twitter feed makes me question that), but if you think it wasn't basically part and parcel of life then you're deluded.

And there is still plenty of

> homophobia today.

>

> But it isn't coming from me.

Debatable.

>

> I don't think the approach we are taking in

> schools re: homophobia is the best one. There is a

> great deal of indoctrination going on and I would

> rather people accept gay people because they are

> accepting tolerant individuals than because they

> are indoctrinated.

That's generally what's going on with normal people. This is London in 2020. No one cares if you're gay. Well, no one reasonable anyway. However you don't have to go too far out of London to step back in time 30 years, so yeah, maybe some people do need to be helped to understand that it's not the end of the world if little Alfie has two dads.

We are indoctrinating our

> children with ideologies rather than teaching them

> to be open minded and accepting.

No, no we really aren't. Being a reasonable and tolerant human isn't an ideology. It's basic good manners.

You only need to

> see the ire directed at people who hold

> conservative or traditional views to know that we

> are not teaching young people tolerance and

> acceptance.

For 'traditional' read 'outdated and unwilling to accept others views'. Check yourself first before assuming it's other people who are displaying intolerance.

>

> I think there is an interesting discussion going

> on although I don't think you are part of it!

Ah, diddums. You don't like being challenged (well, you do write for the Daily Heil)? Well, surely you and TE44 can just reinforce each others views via PM. I note that you aren't exactly having a discussion; for example you responded to Mops first post but ignored her subsequent two where she disagreed with you. Hardly having a debate now is it?

For the record I think the views you hold are dangerous, and if you were in charge of my daughters sexual education I'd be making your life extremely difficult.

>

> Someone raised the question of why I am here - it

> is because I want to know how other people think.

I can save you some time. A lot of people disagree with you.

> I find on twitter you always end up talking to

> people who think the same as you so that isn't so

> valuable. Also there are not enough words for a

> decent discussion whereas here there are enough

> words.

>

> I'm not obsessed with anal sex but RSE materials

> do seem to be. That is why I keep banging on about

> it.

No, sorry, don't believe you. You bring it up repeatedly, you bought BDSM into it, you are manifestly intolerant of any sexual identity that does not fit with your religiously-framed view of how people should be allowed to express themselves physically. You refuse to accept that others lead healthy, loving lives in the embrace of a variant of sexuality that you would decry as sinful and immoral.

>

> Yes I would like to see the sex education system

> changed. For decades now we have had rising rates

> of sexually transmitted diseases, very high rates

> of teenage pregnancy, huge levels of mental health

> issues, and now we have young children confused

> about something as basic as their sex yet we keep

> doggedly ploughing on in the same direction. Yes I

> would really like to see it changed.

And you think AAALLLLL of that is because of RSE? You think we're descending into some kind of cesspit of sexual depravity because of that?

Rising rates of STD's? Debatable. 2018 was up by 5% on the previous couple of years, where it hit stabilised after dropping down from the high points of 2012-15, and now is generally hanging around where it was in the years 07-12. You're trying to give an impression of skyrocketing STI's and that isn't the case.

'Very high rates of teenage preganancy'? Wrong. Just wrong. It's actually declining.

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/teenage-pregnancy

"The under-18 conception rate has decreased for ten years running. In 2017, there were 16,740 conceptions to women aged under 18 in England and Wales, equating to 17.9 conceptions per 1,000 women. This was a 5.3% decrease compared with 2016, and a 57% decrease compared with 2007. There are many factors that could explain recent reductions in under-18 conceptions, including programmes to improve access to contraceptives, a shift in aspirations of young women towards education, and the perception of stigma associated with being a teenage mother."

So you're talking rubbish there. And you say you're a researcher...

Mental health issues? Yes, there's teenage mental health issues. Part of that - a large part - is better understanding and awareness of mental health in general. It's not just in teenagers that it's rising, adults too. It's got very little to do with RSE, and it's frankly a strawman argument to suggest otherwise.

As for trying to bring in the trans argument - nope, sorry, not going there. Nice try, not biting. That's an entirely different discussion; you started this talking about basic sexual education and trying to make out that having open and frank conversations with teenagers in the modern age was dangerous and could lead to the downfall of society.

You don't like RSE, mainly because it conflicts with religiously-informed beliefs that you hold very strongly, and you're looking for stuff to back up your argument. You haven't found it yet, you just think you have.

>

> This isn't about my children. I just have this

> weird thing where I really care about the world I

> live in and future generations.

And so do the rest of us. And frankly I think you might want to ask yourself why your views are in the minority yet the world still keeps functioning?

Purely apropos of, you know, nothing at all, did you happen to see what went down with Jerry and Rebeccca Falwell? Wow, I mean, they presumably had exactly the kind of attitude to sex that you do, and yet he would stand in the corner of the bedroom watching his wife with the pool boy? Yup, telling people not to do something, that's a sure fire winner, every time...

[Mops]

niledynodely Wrote:

>

> Of course I think there used to be homophobia in

> the 60s, 70s and 80s - I don't know where you get

> that idea from. And there is still plenty of

> homophobia today.

>

> But it isn't coming from me.

NN/ OP

In your post of Thursday evening at 11:55pm you said:

?I don't think we should make anal sex seem normal, it really has some serious health risks and I think we should tell young people about this. The only reason we don't is because we are afraid of being homophobic but I think it is far more damaging to gay people to not properly inform them of the risks of anal sex. I think the vast majority of us just accept gay people without thinking to much about what they get up to. And to be honest my generation grew up by and large perfectly accepting of gay people without having to go through some sort of programme in order to accept them.?

Having told us you?re of a 60s generation, I believe this is where you have suggested homophobia was not prevalent in the latter half of the 20th century.

I certainly hope you don?t cherry pick resources for your academic research with the same confirmation bias you apply to your homophobic rhetoric.

OP, you assert that you?re not homophobic. Why don?t we call a spade a spade here. I think the article ?the myth that gays [sic] are bullied at school? for ?The Conservation Woman? is a pretty good example of your deep seated homophobia (together with the aforementioned twitter video).

It?s a shame you do not realise that non-heterosexual relationships will exist and LGBTQ+ identifying people will continue to be born whether you like it or not. The option isn?t whether these sexualities or sexual preferences exist; it?s whether we include each other as equals or whether we perpetuate or exacerbate intolerance, hatred and bigotry. Given the choice between including and accepting or vilifying someone, based on something entirely involuntary (and a ?protected characteristic? might I add), surely there?s no question.

[Mops]

The *Conservative Woman.

Not sure if that was irony or an unwillingness to acknowledge such doggerel.

[TE44]

I think its pretty obvious by your posts j.a. you need to look at what you believe tolerance means.

I cannot see how this subject can be taught without choice as it goes against some family beliefs, and concerns, this may cause the child distress. Many people would already have had conversations regarding how different people live, I don>t believe many children would reach 13 and not have had conversations with there parents, and know many people who live very different from themselves. I find there*s a huge contradiction with a lesson being portrayed as teaching tolerance and difference when this country and others are so divided on this issue for many reasons not only religion yet this is being made mandatory regards of peoples views and beliefs. It shows no tolerance for differences.

[j.a.]

I really don?t feel the need to be lectured on tolerance by an anti-vaxxer.

Though I will say - no, I don?t have tolerance for the views the OP holds. They?re dangerous and reactionary and outdated and have the potential for harm.

Tolerance for differences is fine - it?s what we should strive for - but when fundamental religious beliefs get involved then the choice is to take your child out of the state system and use a faith school.

We do not - and it?s not possible to - create an education system that can encompass everything from Orthodox Judaism, fundamental Catholicism, atheism, agnosticism, Hinduism, Bhuddism and more besides. So we don?t. We try to be secular. Some religious beliefs have unpleasant attitudes to women and gays in them. That?s not who we are (or should be) as a society, and it?s those beliefs that are the problem.

This a pluralistic society. That includes people without religious beliefs. This is why we have faith schools. Send your kid there if that?s what you want, the rest of a will then have a discussion if we?re still concerned.

You feel free to agree with her, that?s your problem.

[seenbeen]

TE44 Wrote:

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

> I think its pretty obvious by your posts j.a. you

> need to look at what you believe tolerance means.

>

> I cannot see how this subject can be taught

> without choice as it goes against some family

> beliefs, and concerns, this may cause the child

> distress. Many people would already have had

> conversations regarding how different people live,

> I don>t believe many children would reach 13 and

> not have had conversations with there parents,

> and know many people who live very different from

> themselves. I find there*s a huge contradiction

> with a lesson being portrayed as teaching

> tolerance and difference when this country and

> others are so divided on this issue for many

> reasons not only religion yet this is being made

> mandatory regards of peoples views and beliefs. It

> shows no tolerance for differences.

We have tolerance and equality enshrined in the laws of the land and people are supposed to be protected by them. Many members of the so called 'faith' communities actively encourage and disrupt the peace to promote their views with lies in many cases in order to undermine the law which by process of philosophical evolution has brought us here. We should NOT under any circumstances be dragged back into the middle ages regardless of what others might desire.

The fact is that the parents in these faith communities raise their children to be intolerant and hostile towards those who do not subscribe to their ideologies and it is up to those in education to show those children that the UK is tolerant so that if they find themselves at odds with their own communities they feel safe to be different.

There should be NO choice about removing your child out of the system that is teaching tolerances supported by the law of the land, and into a system that is at odds with those tolerances.

I hate to say this but there are other places in the world that would indulge homophobia etc.

And there should be NO 'faith' schools especially ones that are state supported and undermine the laws of that very state.

We are all human and we want our freedom!

[j.a.]

To be honest I?m conflicted on the issue of faith schools. I went to a CoE primary that was fairly benign in its application of religion, but hardcore secondary faith schools are a different kettle of fish.

I totally appreciate people of genuine faith will want their children bought up in an environment which reflects that. The problems are when personal religion supersedes common morale values held by society.

Someone (of devout faith) once told me they believed religion was for the home and place of worship and nowhere in between, and I?ve often felt that has merit. You don?t like how society does stuff? Go somewhere else.

[TE44]

I am nor religious, my grown up children have since being young always been aware of different lives as is my grandchild. This is not about the subject, I feel the op has been clear in stating this.It is not that difficult to be tolerant of peoples beliefs without assuming the worst of people. It creates a society that silences and does not and encourages an all or nothing understanding. I dont have to agree with everything someone says or disagree with everything someone says because we see differently over certain things.

J.a. you are a perfecrt example by your comment about me being "an anti vaxxer nuff said". I find this attitude dangerous. Its an attempt to cancel people out and a touch of bullying,although I don't feel bullied.

[niledynodely]

I actually agree with the idea that faith shouldn't be taught at school (a grey area with faith schools alluded to above - I have mixed feelings and can't argue with what j.a. says).I think faith is in many respects a private matter.

But what schools are currently teaching includes things which are absolutely in direct contradiction of my faith. They are teaching things about the most intimate ways in which we conduct our private lives. They are teaching this in ways which really could significantly influence children in ways which directly challenge their parental beliefs and values which as I keep restating goes against UN law. Of course we should teach that gay marriage exists in this country, but we should just leave it at that. The assumption that we should have sex basically when we feel like it is also against Christian beliefs.

Personally I think the answer is for schools to keep what they teach about intimate lives to the bare minimum of the mechanics of how babiess are made, contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, and yes that some people are gay and it isn't a problem. Leave it at that and be done with and there wouldn't be a problem.

In many ways what is being taught is the ideological equivalent of a religion. 'They' really do want to challenge the heteronormative basis of this society. This is as much an ideological approach as any religion and as such it should be prevented.

It is because the state through schools is interfering with the most intimate aspects of our private lives that there is a problem. This is the issue - the interference in intimate, private personal beliefs of ANY kind. This is what should be stopped.

[niledynodely]

I can only agree with everything you say. I'm glad I'm not alone in this!

[j.a.]

NN - so you admit, it?s your faith that is at the basis of your objections.

And on the basis of YOUR faith, you believe things should change, and that people who disagree with you are being intolerant of your religion.

Has it occurred to you that your beliefs make you intolerant of other people?s way of life?

I state - yet again - no one is telling you that you can?t talk to your kids about this. You seem to believe that the school has some kind of hierarchy over you. You are a parent, take some responsibility.

TE44 - I do not agree with ?cancel culture? in general, I think it is a dangerous path that leads to blindness. I?m not cancelling anyone, but am I arguing with them where I think they are so wrong that it is detrimental to society in general. You can?t seem to tell the difference.

The exception being anti-vaxxers. You are a clear and present danger to the human race. I don?t care how you feel.

[niledynodely]

j.a. Wrote:

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

> NN - so you admit, it?s your faith that is at the

> basis of your objections.

>

> And on the basis of YOUR faith, you believe things

> should change, and that people who disagree with

> you are being intolerant of your religion.

>

> Has it occurred to you that your beliefs make you

> intolerant of other people?s way of life?

>

> I state - yet again - no one is telling you that

> you can?t talk to your kids about this. You seem

> to believe that the school has some kind of

> hierarchy over you. You are a parent, take some

> responsibility.

>

>

> TE44 - I do not agree with ?cancel culture? in

> general, I think it is a dangerous path that leads

> to blindness. I?m not cancelling anyone, but am I

> arguing with them where I think they are so wrong

> that it is detrimental to society in general. You

> can?t seem to tell the difference.

> The exception being anti-vaxxers. You are a clear

> and present danger to the human race. I don?t care

> how you feel.

J.a. I don't know which came first my faith or my love and respect for sex. Those are very deep questions and I don't think I should honour someone who treats me with such disrespect by trying to work out the intimate details of my inner life. There is an expression (from The Bible). I think it might be Jesus who says 'don't feed pearls to the pigs'. Hmmm that's a pearl in itself.

I can see an ideology which has the potential to do immense harm to our young people. We already see the enormous damage of current ideology in the huge increase in numbers of young people suffering from gender dysphoria, many of them going on to have hormone therapy and even going on to mutilate their bodies (yes that is how I regard it when people under a certain age have mastectomies etc) . We see increases in sexually transmitted diseases, increases in young people having anal sex, increases in mental health problems and ongoing large numbers of abortions. We have decreasing rates of marriage, a decrease in the amount that people are having sex, and with what is being taught in our schools the potential for confusion will get worse. The people who will be worst affected will be our grandchildren.

I care very much about these things and I would like other people to have a better understanding of what is going on. That might sound arrogant or patronising but I have spent a considerable amount of time studying the RSE agenda, much more time than the average person and so I think it is fair to say I have a better understanding.

But I don't think I will feed any more pearls to pigs. You do just trample them underfoot.

[snowy]

But you haven?t spent a serious amount of time studying abstinence based RSE programmes - as the longitudinal analysis of American programmes (evaluated by researchers with a range of ideological standpoints) demonstrates there?s little provable attributable impact.

You just cherry pick research from conservative religious groups with their own agenda and interests which conveniently suit your personal interpretation of catholic tenets.

If you claim to be an academic, please provide some peer reviewed sources.

Otherwise the danger is that you look to be promoting bigotry for personal gain. It also looks like this is less about your children?s education and more about your own personal issues around sex and relationships.

Also ?heteronormative? - I honestly pity you and your life experience that led you down that the path - it?s a word that is textbook homophobia- a belief in a hierarchy of sex and it?s application is rightly illegal under uk law.

[Siduhe]

And zero attempt to address your post suggesting that educating children about sex, including same sex relationships (and sex in a same sex relationship) increases rates of child sex abuse.

[niledynodely]

If a child is vulnerable, for example he or she has suffered abuse at home or whatever, and they are then confronted with images of splayed legs, cross-sections of penises in vagines (e.g YOu, me and PSHE) or cartoon images of people engaged in sexual intercourse (Spring Fever), I think that there is a liklihood that these images and the context could trigger inappropriate behaviours (which are called sexual abuse although I would not be so quick to call them that - the authories would). For me this seems such an obvious risk I think that the onus should be on the providers of the material to prove that this won't happen. Of course it can't be scientifically tested one way or another, but rates of child on child sexual abuse have gone up in schools and my hunch is that some of the more sexualised curriculums have a role to play.

[niledynodely]

Anyway I was glad to see that while some residents of Dulwich may be too progressive and liberal to be overly concerned about the contents of sex education they may not be representative of the country as a whole. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/government-gives-pupils-sex-advice-on-the-roll-of-a-dice-80hmsplws

[niledynodely]

Hey TE44 - I was glad to see the contents of RSE resources ARE getting more public attention! https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/government-gives-pupils-sex-advice-on-the-roll-of-a-dice-80hmsplws