Follow Topics

26 October 2012, 12.06pm EST

Worried about the sexualisation of children? Teach sex ed earlier

When should sex education begin for children? According to some parent groups who advised the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), not until grades 5 and 6. Under this pressure, ACARA pushed back sex education, revising their original guidelines that introduced it at years…

46c2yw24-1351140162 — Starting a conversation about sex early in a child’s education is important. Image from www.shutterstock.com

When should sex education begin for children?

According to some parent groups who advised the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), not until grades 5 and 6. Under this pressure, ACARA pushed back sex education, revising their original guidelines that introduced it at years 3 and 4.

But just as we’ve decided to push back sexual education to later years, the media has been full of discussion about the sexualisation of children, the effects of marketing on children’s body image and concerns about kids’ exposure to pornography.

Yet what the public and media have misunderstood here, is the capacity for sex education to help combat the negative messages children are learning about sex and their bodies.

We have confused children learning about sex in an appropriate educational context with the sexualisation of children.

Look to the evidence

There is complete agreement in the literature that healthy sexual development is dependent on two-way communication between adults and children, and this needs to begin early.

Research from the fields of child abuse and sexual assault tell us that we should begin to teach children the proper names of their sexual body parts, like “vagina”, “penis” and “anus”, right from the start (in the toddler years) and certainly after school has begun.

This gives children a common language to speak about and understand concepts like acceptable and unacceptable touching.

Later on in the middle school years, children’s perceptions of sex and their bodies change. If looking at my son’s bookshelf is anything to go by, we can reliably call these the “Bum Joke years”.

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada describe this stage as a time of curiosity, including delight in rude jokes and an interest in, and the capacity to understand, how babies are conceived.

Children are already interested, so now is not the time to shut down the conversation. To do so teaches children something else: that this is a topic fit only for school playground humour.

When does puberty begin?

Children need to understand the practical details of managing puberty before it begins to happen in their own bodies, as well as their peers'. And there is increasing evidence that puberty is happening earlier and earlier.

A US study of 4,000 children, published online last week found that boys are reaching puberty 2 years earlier than previously believed. On average “white” boys started puberty at 10, and “black” children at age 9. Other studies have suggested that girls are also beginning puberty earlier.

If we want to introduce children to some of the stages of puberty before it begins, then certainly, year 6 is too late. By the time children reach years 5 and 6, even if covered partly in the previous years, they need to be taught the practical side of the physical, emotional and social changes they’re seeing.

With the advantage of an existing language and capacity to discuss sexual matters these children are more able to critique the media messages and images that they come across.

In recent years, many primary school teachers I work with have, in response to children’s concerns, changed their programs to deal with body image, students’ viewing of pornography online, and exclusion of children who do not fit “prescribed” boy or girl interests.

Growing minds

It seems self-evident but children grow in to teenagers. The fourth National Survey of Students Sexual Health, which surveyed almost 3,000 students in years 10 and 12, found that one quarter of Australian adolescents have sexual intercourse by year 10, and 50% by year 12.

80% have had some kind of sexual interaction such as deep kissing and sexual touching by year 10.

More teenagers are having sex with more partners, and the amount of unwanted encounters is also on the rise. More than a third of high school students have experienced unwanted sex, particularly young women.

Other studies have shown that Australian young people find it hard to communicate sexual boundaries. Because some programs spend their time trying to stop young people from being sexual, rather than helping them towards a healthy sexuality, young people miss the opportunity to consider “how far do I want to go?”

The other important criticism offered by young people is that sex education is often limited to biology and disease without giving them the chance to reflect on their values and priorities. Perhaps, again, we fear that this kind of conversation will give young people license to have sex. Instead we find they are less likely to experience unplanned pregnancies, STIs and sexual coercion.

School-based education programs that focus on helping young people develop values and skills around relationships and sexual decision-making make a difference.

Greater knowledge

The evidence shows clearly that sexual learning starts before Grades 5 and 6. Before puberty, knowledge is vital to happily managing our sexual lives.

Our job as educators and parents and policy makers, is not to seal children from their sexual development, nor is it to stop the conversation. We have a part to play in setting guidelines and expectations around this aspect of children’s lives, as we do any other.

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

14 Comments sorted by

Jeff Poole

logged in via Facebook

I couldn't agree more!

I truly wish that I'd been taught about sex before age 7.

That was when one of the local shopkeepers started touching me up. If I'd had the faintest idea what was going on I'd probably have said something to a teacher or my parents.

As it was I just kept quiet.

7 months ago report
Dania Ng

Retired factory worker

Interesting article, thanks for your views. The perspective advocated here is Kinsey-ean, and fallacious. Children need to learn progressively about their sexuality, and in step with their maturation. These types of articles, good-intended as they might seem, incrementally pushes the education system into teaching younger and younger children about things which they cannot properly understand. This is an extremely complex issue, and quite dangerous to young people if we lose sight of our true responsibility…
Read more

Interesting article, thanks for your views. The perspective advocated here is Kinsey-ean, and fallacious. Children need to learn progressively about their sexuality, and in step with their maturation. These types of articles, good-intended as they might seem, incrementally pushes the education system into teaching younger and younger children about things which they cannot properly understand. This is an extremely complex issue, and quite dangerous to young people if we lose sight of our true responsibility to them, which is to provide a safe environment for them to grow up. Teaching children about sex without thinking of the real consequences is like teaching them to shoot firearms and kill. At 9 or 10 years, they can't possibly comprehend the more intricate mechanisms of a rifle, let alone the actual harm that it can do. And, just like the child soldiers of Congo, they can more easily be brain washed into thinking they can be invincible. It is the same with sexual education, the responsibility is upon us, as adults, to protect children, not to enable them to harm themselves and others. I remember one of my children when she was four or five, and came home from pre-school with a new word, 'vagina'. Shortly after we caught her trying to insert something in the cat's back-orifice!
A footnote: I ask myself, is there a correlations between the so-called liberalisation of sex education for children and social outcomes like a larger than ever number of teen pregnancies?

7 months ago report
1. Michaela Patel
  
  Primary & Secondary Teacher
  
  In reply to Dania Ng
  
  Perhaps the issue is an understanding of what 'sex education' means. I know several girls in grade 5 (ie, 10 and 11 year olds) who have started menstruating. They hadn't had any education about it - it just happened. I was shocked when I started at about 13 - no one had ever really told me what to expect. If menstruation is starting to Grade 5 girls, then they need to be ready for it before then. ie, they need sex education before grade 5.
  
  "Sex education" is not just about intercourse. It is about…
  Read more
  
  Perhaps the issue is an understanding of what 'sex education' means. I know several girls in grade 5 (ie, 10 and 11 year olds) who have started menstruating. They hadn't had any education about it - it just happened. I was shocked when I started at about 13 - no one had ever really told me what to expect. If menstruation is starting to Grade 5 girls, then they need to be ready for it before then. ie, they need sex education before grade 5.
  
  "Sex education" is not just about intercourse. It is about the changes that happen to everyone's bodies at different stages of development. It is about the feelings that you have a different times. Hence, 6 year old boys could be taught that their sudden feelings of aggression are due to their brains suddenly making more testosterone. (I'm not a developmental expert - just a mum of 6 year old boys). Is testosterone a scary, sex word? Grade 4 girls who start to develop breasts (yes, they often do) can be taught about this too as part of sex education. Not about intercourse - just about normal body changes.
  
  I taught a Grade 5/6 class the other day and was asked by the boys (sniggering, as they did) if I was going to teach them about, you know, giggle, giggle. They pointed to their weekly word list on the wall - vagina, penis, urethra, etc. I was impressed that the regular teacher gave them a list like that. What's wrong with calling body parts by their proper names? My boys know they have penises and scrotums, just as they have elbows and noses. My daughter knows she has a vagina. Why should we use euphemisms for some body parts but not others? Simply knowing the name for something doesn't mean your kids will go and have sex! But by imbuing the words with our own sense of awkwardness, kids get the idea that certain body parts are something to be confused and embarrassed about.
  
  My understanding of liberal sex education programs, such as in the Netherlands (always brought up as an example), is that such programs lead to a marked decline in STIs, far fewer teenage pregnancies, and an increase in the average age of first intercourse.
  
  7 months ago report
2. Dania Ng
  
  Retired factory worker
  
  In reply to Michaela Patel
  
  Dear Michaela
  Thank you for your comment. I think you are confusing sex 'education' with health education. By all means, teach young children about the physical changes they experience, and I wish you the best of luck with teaching a six year old that his feelings of anger are due to testosterone. And all the best with your daughter if that's how you choose to parent her, by using anatomic labels for her body parts. But please don't teach other people's children in the same way, you seem not to…
  Read more
  
  Dear Michaela
  Thank you for your comment. I think you are confusing sex 'education' with health education. By all means, teach young children about the physical changes they experience, and I wish you the best of luck with teaching a six year old that his feelings of anger are due to testosterone. And all the best with your daughter if that's how you choose to parent her, by using anatomic labels for her body parts. But please don't teach other people's children in the same way, you seem not to have a full understanding of cognitive development. Observing a few kids not having enough understanding of what to do when they experience major physiological changes, for example when girls first menstruate, is not to say that all parents do not prepare their children for such times in their development. So your best avenue is to not generalise and then push 'sex education' (instead of health education) onto all children, but to have a talk to the parents of the children you thus encounter.
  I am not aware of strong evidence where children benefit from earlier 'sex education', but I do see persuasive studies which clearly indicate that, since this latest development in the brand of 'sex science' begun by Alfred Kinsey, in English-speaking countries children do on average engage in sex earlier, more young girls become pregnant, there is associated alcohol and drug usage associated with sex, more unwanted sex, and so on. The problem is that not many studies have focused on correlations between these outcomes and 'sex education'. The reason teen pregnancies are lower in Netherlands than, say, here or the US, is because there (and in other lower European countries) parents are more liberal than here, basically putting their young daughters on the pill as soon as they express a desire to be sexually active and agreeing to them having sexually-active relationships. But then again, rates of drug use We are of course not as liberal as that, culturally, and most parents desire their daughters to practice abstinence until they become more mature. Most studies cited by advocates of early sex 'education' are not sufficiently sophisticate to take this crucial comparative difference into account, and are designed and carried out by researchers who have an interest in pushing it. In other words, they compare apples with oranges.
  Lastly, as an educator, you should dwell on the ethical aspects of what it means to be a professional teacher, think carefully about the impact on children and young people of these so-called 'sex education' practices imposed on them by some educators - in same cases without parents' permission, no doubt.
  
  7 months ago report
3. Michaela Patel
  
  Primary & Secondary Teacher
  
  In reply to Dania Ng
  
  I think sex education and health education are part of the same thing - learning about bodies, psychological development, relationships. Developing knowledge of all that should happen gradually over years, not in short bursts from age 11, when kids are already in or close to puberty and probably not in the mood for listening to adults tell them stuff. There is some great material from WA about this topic, with support for parents (and teachers) learning to answer tricky questions from kids:
  http…
  Read more
  
  I think sex education and health education are part of the same thing - learning about bodies, psychological development, relationships. Developing knowledge of all that should happen gradually over years, not in short bursts from age 11, when kids are already in or close to puberty and probably not in the mood for listening to adults tell them stuff. There is some great material from WA about this topic, with support for parents (and teachers) learning to answer tricky questions from kids:
  http://www.public.health.wa.gov.au/cproot/4010/2/HP11643_Talk_Soon%20_Talk_Often%20_Tipsheet.pdf
  
  The materials have a good description of sexuality as:
  "It’s not just sex. ‘Sexuality’ covers bodies, babies, growing up, being
  a boy, being a girl, love and closeness, sexual feelings, sexual expression,
  personal values and relationships."
  
  I was a scientist before becoming a teacher, and fairly matter of fact about everything. My kids haven't asked me direct questions as yet, and I do kind of dread the day, but I hope I can be rationally matter-of fact about it. At the same time, I hope we do have those conversations, rather than my kids finding out through rumour, lies and innuendo from playground gossip. The materials from WA certainly help to guide the way to positive parental discussions.
  
  I'm curious to know though, with your own kids, if you have any, what terms did you use for "those bits"? Why did you use euphemisms (if you did)? And what objections do you have about using correct anatomical terms? If I was teaching your kids, and they found out from me (and not you) the correct names for these tricky bits, would you complain? Would you prefer teachers to use euphemisms as well?
  
  Hearing boys in the playground talking about their willies, dicks, or other fairly derogatory terms for a standard body part, constantly reminds me that as a society, we are embarrassed to talk about sexuality. If we were more open to talking, even just to using correct names for things, perhaps there would be less sexual abuse, fewer teenagers (particularly girls) complaining of pressure to have sex, and better relationships. Those poor children who've been victims of church abuse might have been able to tell someone exactly what happened, rather than being too embarrassed to say the words.
  
  I'm also a bit curious why you focussed on girls remaining abstinent and not boys? Or was it just a typo? Did you mean that parents prefer "their children" to remain abstinent? I hope so. I too would like my kids to remain virgins until they meet someone worthwhile, not just do it because everyone else is doing it. And that's where the Dutch example sounds sensible, from what I understand of it. They promote the idea of healthy relationships, where sex happens in a loving way, with someone you know and trust. It might still be teenagers, but they are teenagers who know each other, rather than strangers at a drunken party. This approach means that you have to educate students about relationships, give them the skills and language to talk about sex in a positive way, rather than with embarrassment. And this approach necessarily broadens sex education to include many aspects of health and well-being.
  
  7 months ago report
4. Dania Ng
  
  Retired factory worker
  
  In reply to Michaela Patel
  
  Thanks Michaela for taking the time to further expand on your earlier comments. I don't think we disagree in respect to what we both want for our children (in my case, grandchildren as well), which is of course that they make informed decisions about their bodies and health, and we're obviously both concerned for the well-being of young people. Thanks for linking to the pamphlet, it's interesting and I agree with the essence of what it advises parents, especially about talking often and as necessary…
  Read more
  
  Thanks Michaela for taking the time to further expand on your earlier comments. I don't think we disagree in respect to what we both want for our children (in my case, grandchildren as well), which is of course that they make informed decisions about their bodies and health, and we're obviously both concerned for the well-being of young people. Thanks for linking to the pamphlet, it's interesting and I agree with the essence of what it advises parents, especially about talking often and as necessary with children about their bodies and the changes they experience. But it is also plainly wrong on a number of things it tells parents. For instance, it isn't 10% of young people who will experience 'same-sex attractions'. This proves a point I made in my previous post in that, incredibly, we still see information peddled which derives from the unethical and shoddy work of Alfred Kinsey and his team, over sixty years ago - and I would be very, very worried if the advice provided in this pamphlet derives from that body of work! No, in fact reliable work tells us that there is 2-4% of people who experience SS attraction - huge difference! Actually, 'sex education' aims to tell very young children that the reason boys like boys and girls like girls better than the other sex is because they might be gay! This is so that it 'prepares' them to grow up safely as gay. The fact that children just like to play and hang out with their own gender until they begin to take an interest in the other sex is undermined by such 'sex education' and gender confusion can be promoted for young people - talking about cognitive dissonance!
  Yes, I do have children, of both genders, and they're all grown up - my oldest grandchild is a teen. I am very proud of them as they are all responsible adults, each a respected professional, and with mature attitudes about their bodies which go beyond the highly individualist doctrine of 'it's all about me and how I feel'. I am particularly proud of the high regard they hold for human life and the genuine empathy they feel for others. They are fantastic parents, all of them. All this is not due to 'sex education' which they had none that I know of in their schooling, though of course they, as all young people, had their growing up pains and such. While growing up, we as parents made sure they understood that social life is about wrong and right, and that it is a moral life - some things are right and some are wrong. We didn't need to use anatomical labels to explain the function of their sexual organs, though of course they learned about these when the time was right for them, and in context. That meant that we never had plays, like 'here's my nose, here's my moth, here's my knee, here's my penis/vagina'. When they learned about 'dicks' and other such, they learned about these as being wrong to say in certain contexts, but maybe okay with their peers. They also knew that we would never chastise them for trying new things, but they respect us, as parents, and on their own volition protect us from things which they might perceive we might disapprove of - I am especially proud of their maturity. In the event, I don't actually have anything against using whatever labels you like, I use 'willy' and you can use 'penis' - they both serve the same purpose because the boy knows exactly what we refer to. It is the rest that sexual 'educators' aim to do that I am not comfortable with. However, I believe each nomenclature is part of a specific system of meaning. When one commits to one, then they commit to employing that system for a particular context. Scientific nomenclature is specific to scientific explanations and research; it is not imbued with the meaning appropriate to a particular stage in a child's development. Why else would you think parents use a specific set of terms, in a manner which has been developed since time begun?
  I have referred to girls when discussing abstinence in extending the example of girls and menstruation. Of course, I hold that abstinence is important for boys as well, I hold no gender bias, I hope. It is girls, however, who get pregnant, and so boys need to understand the consequences of sexual 'freedom' which they and girls are taught is okay to have (the doctrine of "my body, I do with it as I want"). Teaching children the value of empathy, respect, and consequences is vastly more valuable, I would argue, than teaching them that it is okay to have sex as long as you know how to use a condom properly (please understand, I am not advocating that we should not teach young people about the use of condoms - I am simply pointing out that I value one more over the other). Science tells us that using condoms leads to healthier sexual outcomes. Ethics, however, tells us that we, as adults, should be responsible for when, and how, to teach children this.
  
  7 months ago report
5. Eric Glare
  
  HIV public speaker and volunteer
  
  In reply to Dania Ng
  
  Diana, it is good to have your comments attached to this article as they serve to explain the problem of culture and religion leading even when it hurts kids -and no child should go through the torture you advocate that I experienced. The overwhelming plea from young adults is to do sex ed better and earlier but you brag about your kids being told when you though best.
  
  You have said you are "not aware of strong evidence where children benefit from earlier 'sex education'" which can only mean you…
  Read more
  
  Diana, it is good to have your comments attached to this article as they serve to explain the problem of culture and religion leading even when it hurts kids -and no child should go through the torture you advocate that I experienced. The overwhelming plea from young adults is to do sex ed better and earlier but you brag about your kids being told when you though best.
  
  You have said you are "not aware of strong evidence where children benefit from earlier 'sex education'" which can only mean you have not read any of the research in the area but still you lecture us on science.
  
  "The problem is that not many studies have focused on correlations between these outcomes and 'sex education'. " Wrong - there is plenty from the US that shows its ABC abstinence education led to earlier sex and undermines negotiation skills. And the US is paying for it in higher rates of HIV and other STI compared to other OECD countries. I do not believe your assertions about the Netherlands -please provide data.
  
  You refer to this article as "perspective advocated here is Kinsey-ean, and fallacious" and then you disagree that "10% of young people who will experience 'same-sex attractions'" - the latter requiring apostrophes as if it isn't real to you. It is no more 'Kinsey-ean' than gravity is Newton-ian (corrected by Einstein). Even if you only want to take the last 15 years, there is a mountain data against your position some of which you will find at the link you were given and here
  http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/downloads/arcshs-research-publications/secondary-students-and-sexual-health-2008.pdf
  Quote "Almost 1 in 10 students surveyed reported their most recent sexual encounter was with someone of the same sex. For young men, the likelihood of having a same sex encounter at the most recent sexual experience had increased from 2% in 2002 to 8% in 2008."
  That is real teenagers reporting their sexual activity, not their feelings of attraction. But guess what - these results have to be under-reported because of the stigma of SSA. Which is also why we are not surprised by the change between 2002 and 2008 -in reporting - we are not suggesting behaviour changed.
  
  There is no credible data that same-sex attraction is anywhere near as low as 2-4%, figures you misappropriate from other questions where people were asked about identity not attraction and were not necessarily given room for trust or privacy. Transgender and intersex people are each thought to be more than 1%. And how many married bi-people are going to say so to you?
  
  This is classic homophobia. Even if we were a minority less than 1% we are real, we are normal and we deserve respect not endless bullying at school.
  
  7 months ago report
6. Drew Ringsmuth
  
  PhD Candidate in Biophysics at University of Queensland
  
  In reply to Eric Glare
  
  Hi, Eric,
  
  'we are real, we are normal and we deserve respect'
  
  It never ceases to amaze me, how hard it is to get well-meaning people to understand this simple reality. Why would anyone actively choose to be part of an unfairly downtrodden minority? "I'm bored. I know, I'll turn gay, just for the fun of being misunderstood, bullied, and increasing my chance of committing suicide." Gah!
  
  Last I read up on it (admittedly, some years ago now), there were some reasonable-sounding evolutionary…
  Read more
  
  Hi, Eric,
  
  'we are real, we are normal and we deserve respect'
  
  It never ceases to amaze me, how hard it is to get well-meaning people to understand this simple reality. Why would anyone actively choose to be part of an unfairly downtrodden minority? "I'm bored. I know, I'll turn gay, just for the fun of being misunderstood, bullied, and increasing my chance of committing suicide." Gah!
  
  Last I read up on it (admittedly, some years ago now), there were some reasonable-sounding evolutionary arguments for the value of homosexuality, at the tribal level. Homosexual people add to the human resources of a tribe without adding more hungry mouths to feed. They can devote their energies to things other than feeding and rearing their own children, which, of course, has been the primary occupation of humans throughout human history. That's the argument I remember, anyway. Not sure what the state of the art is now.
  
  I think there would be great value in discussing this with kids in sex ed class too. We are the complex ways we are because that's what worked in the past; that's what got us here. It's all part of the spectrum of reality and we should be honest and open about it with our children, so they can get on with growing up, caring about each other, and working on some bigger problems.
  
  7 months ago report
Drew Ringsmuth

PhD Candidate in Biophysics at University of Queensland

Hi Jenny,

Thanks for this article. I find the evidence in favour of early sex education quite convincing, and agree that starting earlier rather than later is likely to be a positive move for kids' well-being. I've always found it bizarre that our culture doesn't object strongly to exposing young kids to images of strong (illegal) violence, yet we maintain a taboo around aspects of human biology and behaviour that become a large feature of all humans lives from a relatively young age: sexuality…
Read more

Hi Jenny,

Thanks for this article. I find the evidence in favour of early sex education quite convincing, and agree that starting earlier rather than later is likely to be a positive move for kids' well-being. I've always found it bizarre that our culture doesn't object strongly to exposing young kids to images of strong (illegal) violence, yet we maintain a taboo around aspects of human biology and behaviour that become a large feature of all humans lives from a relatively young age: sexuality. Why do we let kids watch videos of people killing each other but prevent them from watching people engage in activities involved in creating life?

On a different note, I have a question: Is there any discussion of teaching sexual *psychology* in schools? When I was at school, sex ed started in grade 8 and was almost exclusively focused on biology and health. While I agree that understanding these topics is critically important for young people, my experience as a young adult has been that I would have benefited just as much from having been taught about sexual (evolutionary) psychology.

I think that most people, like me, have experienced sexuality (and pair-bonding) as something other than what Disney taught us as kids. No one ever explained to us why, or even that, men and women have different sexual drives, tastes, and partnering strategies. Or about the more insidious facets of sexual behaviour that have evolved with good reason, like the ongoing tension between monogamy and promiscuity. Men and women spend lots of time being mad and frustrated with each other, for simply doing things that were adaptive for our ancestors to do. I would love to see these issues raised with kids at school, though probably at a later age than basic sexual biology (say, grades 10-12). How about teaching kids a unit called "What women want, what men want, and why they tend to be different"? I think that a scientifically well-founded approach to such a discussion could save people a lot of the heartache that previous generations have been through.

7 months ago report
1. Jane Kyle
  
  Social Policy Analyst
  
  In reply to Drew Ringsmuth
  
  Drew - I am so pleased to see someone else espousing the view I also hold strongly regarding what is and is not censored on our TV and movie screens. Nudity is a BIG no-no and yet, everybody has a body - it's normal and natural and as you point out, most of us put it to relevant uses in time. While I don't necessarily agree that we need to show kids 'intimate encounters' I would far rather my child see a naked person wandering about their living room, than some of the hideous and gratuitous violence that is shown frequently, even on free-to-air TV, not to mention video games.
  
  Given the inability of children to discern between fantasy and reality, particularly at younger ages, this is of great concern and suggesting that 'parents are responsible' is simply a furphy in very many cases. Want to start a campaign to change censorship provisions??
  
  7 months ago report
2. Yoron Hamber
  
  Thinking
  
  In reply to Drew Ringsmuth
  
  "No one ever explained to us why, or even that, men and women have different sexual drives, tastes, and partnering strategies."
  
  Now that was a good question, presenting ideas about that would be worth a article of its own. And I'm sure a lot of people would read, and debate, about it afterwards.
  
  7 months ago report
Geoff Taylor

Consultant

The problem Dania today is that two or three clicks on an unfiltered computer and anyone can reach explicit material. Surveys show a large number of children have done that.
So as a parent or teacher you are morally bound to try to put that in context for the child, even if it has to be earlier than once. The reducing age of puberty is another reason.
incidentally Jenny if we are going to use correct words let's use the two "v" words.

7 months ago report
David Donaldson

adult educator

This discussion shows that nearly the days of fixed curriculums are over, in the sense of content material that has to be "taught" to children. That is what gives such trouble now in History, in English, in Mathematics. Very few people who are now parents can be expected to abandon the rigidities that they were exposed to in their school lives and often at tertiary levels, so this struggle is going to last at least 20 more years. Needed is leadership so the teachers and the public will not be frightened by diversity of opinion but can work toward outcomes and competencies that are right for their students. (Doubtful that such will emerge from office of the present Prime Minister.) In this context, the retreat by ACARA, reported by Jenny, is a sad sign.

7 months ago report
Yoron Hamber

Thinking

Sex is sex, people are people and I'm not you, neither are you me. We all have a right to exist, and as long as no one is 'pushing' his or her personal values on me I will be cool with it. There are some things that is so terribly wrong though, especially using someones youth and naivety/innocence for ones own pleasure. But ignoring that for now, and also admitting that people of all sexual preferences seems to do so at times, I would say that we (people) are what we are, and not so different from any other animals when it comes to sex. And yes, to explain sex to to the young before they 'come out' and try themselves is a must. I've read about too many examples of how older people abuse youth to think that it is better to hide it for them, hoping 'all will go well'.

7 months ago report

Follow Topics

Worried about the sexualisation of children? Teach sex ed earlier

Look to the evidence

When does puberty begin?

Growing minds

Greater knowledge

Republish

Join the conversation

14 Comments sorted by

Jeff Poole

Dania Ng

Michaela Patel

Dania Ng

Michaela Patel

Dania Ng

Eric Glare

Drew Ringsmuth

Drew Ringsmuth

Jane Kyle

Yoron Hamber

Geoff Taylor

David Donaldson

Yoron Hamber

The Conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Look to the evidence

When does puberty begin?

Growing minds

Greater knowledge

Want to follow The Conversation?

Republish

Join the conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter