Sex education should start at age 6

  At my house, boys have "willies" and girls have "millies". At a friend's house, girls' parts are described as "poopsies" (often said in a Betty Boop type voice).

I personally hate the term "front bottom". It sounds like the bum is trying to annex the wild and untamed land of female genitals. But some people do like it and that's fine. After all, when it comes down to it, we all have the same proper names for these parts of the body: penis, vagina, vulva, testicles.

Yet if it's all the same to you, some campaigners would rather young kids weren't taught the real words. The FPA, formerly the Family Planning Association, has published a new booklet for 6-year-olds to encourage earlier discussions about the facts of life. (Read more about what it will include here, such as illustrations of genitals, and what one mother thought of it.) But critics have condemned it as “a very worrying development”. They say that starting sex education younger will lead to more promiscuous behaviour and teen pregnancy.

A raft of studies prove that thinking is wrong, whether you're looking at pregnancy, age of first incident of intercourse or rate of HIV infection. (One such study is "Abstinence only vs comprehensive sex education: what are the arguments? What is the evidence" from the AIDS Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco; here's another that includes results from a study reported in the British Medical Journal in 2007.)

So why do some groups keep condemning efforts to improve and normalise sex education? Why don't they applaud the move to bring education into a safe classroom environment conveyed by teachers or parents rather than leaving it to nuggets whispered by the know-it-all kid in the playground?

It seems obvious to me. What so-called family campaigners' want to teach children about their bodies and sex is shame. Shame explains the thinking that there's something inappropriate and "wrong" for a child to know the correct word to describe a part of their body. That knowing the correct words indoctrinates an attitude of free and easy sexuality. That it sullies their pure souls to know how babies are made and to explain what they can see the cow and the bull doing in the field.

A few years ago I wrote a piece for Seventeen magazine called Vagina 101 that answered the real questions young girls had about their bodies: what should I look like? Should I shave my hair? What's a clitoris and where is it?

It was refreshing to interview highly respected doctors who robustly argued that girls and parents should get over their phobias. "The vagina is no different from an ear or a nostril. It's just a place that's part of us," one said.

The piece won an award, but one chain of grocery stores pulled it from the shelves. Some parents had complained about the "graphic" nature of the medical illustrations and descriptions. They likened it to pornography. One mother of a 17-year-old told a local reporter, "It's dirty. It's dirty."

Responding to the just-released FPA booklet, Trevor Stammers, a GP and trustee of the Family Education Trust, told the Times, “The doctrine of ‘if it feels right for you, do it’ has been disastrous, simply leading to younger and younger teenagers having sex…”. That's not true. But in contrast, these groups have a different message. Sex education is only right if it feels wrong.

Related:

Dr Jane Collins tells how to explain the facts of life

Comments

[Kester]

I really appreciate this article, and essentially agree.

The attitude that morality is something external and conventional that needs to be 'instilled' or imposed on children is so foolish I don't have a polite word for it.

I am also angry about the constant messages in British society from authority figures of general disapproval of sexuality. Repression doesn't work, it only ever makes things worse.

The message should be "enjoy gently" "sex not only feels good but is ethically good and deepens your total ethical intuition or empathy, but be careful of a, b and c specific risks."

It's nonsense that children are non-sexual. Really all humans are intensely sexual from birth (and before acc. to some), we just don't entirely recognise the form of it in children because our own forms are culturally conditioned in slightly odd ways. For example, before I started watching porn, my fantasies were as often about cuddling or a girl snuggling in to my chest or kissing her on the forehead etc. as about penetration. I don't feel my conditioning is 'wrong' or not particularly my fault anyway, but it is conditioning that I think it'd be better for a child to experience at an age they are consciously, reflectively aware (post-puberty) of how they're being conditioned by what they're doing, so they have a free choice and own the responsibility of the act and its consequences.

I'm going to raise my children like in the Dutch model. It's very important to me to give them all the approval and encouragement they need to be sexually free and loving and happy.

[Briony Blohm]

When it comes to sex education, maybe it is helpful to explain to our children that it is a good thing to wait until you have strong feelings towards somebody, that sex isn't a throw away thing and that it is good to wait and not give in to pressure. That doesn't mean to say that you have to wait until marriage, just that the first person and the first pressure should be thought about.

A decision, rather than pressure, would be my wish for my daughter.

[Briony Blohm]

I know that I was ready for the sex education conversation much before my mother was..People mature at very different stages and should be supported as such.

It is interesting, however, that boys are very comfortable with the name given to their genitals ('willy') whilst girls (and mothers) struggle with the never-ending variations given to theirs. I always thought that while feminists were burning their bras, better use could have been put to finding a universally acceptable name for female genitalia.

In the meantime, fanny works in our household. An altogether more appealing version of front bottom. Yes really!

xx

[Mary]

Both my daughters were abused by a trusted female friend starting at age 6. if I, or their school, had told them some of the "facts of life" and a description of inappropriate touching by adults they would have been spared the trauma both have suffered. I thought they were well protected.

All parents should support this. One measure to try and avoid the sadness that our family will always feel.

[Kate]

I believe because the science of reproduction is not subjective it should be taught gradually from a relatively young age, most farmers children learn gradually about reproduction by default, it’s a fact of life like the pollination of flowers, if they learn about it in this way from a young age it’s normalised and they feel more comfortable asking questions. At the very least this clear scientific knowledge would ensure teenage girls didn't get pregnant through sheer ignorance.
BUT The moral aspects of sex education can be very subjective and it should be appreciated that Families (like the children from them) are different, their moral values and beliefs are different, some families choose to say a child is a gift from god, others give a more scientific explanation, some families believe couples should wait until they are married before having children, others believe that provided there is love for that child, a family can take many forms.
Like with most things people are and should be entitled to their own point of view.
I personally believe if a child is old enough to ask a question, they are old enough to be given an answer, but the ability to answer that question depends heavily on how well the person knows the child and their family values.
And who knows a child better than his/her parents?

[Dee]

Sorry P Nealon, 'Emotional support in families is instinctive', sorry, unfortunately it is not in every family, and I should know I come from one, I never felt loved or particularly cared for, I was a commodity, there to look after my 2 younger siblings, whilst my mother went out to work, and the man I called father, came home 1 weekend in 3. I didn't get pregnant at 16, I was lucky, also too terrified of my mothers reaction. I had a baby aged 20 in a stable marriage, did it all end happily ever after, no. Why not?Because I did not get married for the right reasons, I got married to get away from my repressive home life, when things went wrong I had no one to turn to, therefore I stayed in the marriage far longer than I should have, who suffered, my daughter, and now her children too.
Knowing about sex isn't really the issue, knowing about life is, and sex is part of life, hopefully a GOOD part of life in a loving relationship where both parties treat each other, and those around them with respect, something very lacking in todays society.
The problem appears to me to be that if girls get pregnant, it appears everyone will run round them a supply them with everything they want, REALITY CHECK - this isn't the case anymore, 1) you have to have the baby, 2) you have to live with other people in their home, in a placement, i.e. 1 small room, and you don't get any other extra help, 3) when you eventually get your social housing in a rough run down area, you're on your own, until you mess up and social services become involved, from there on in it's all down hill.
Unless there is a big shift in society somewhere this will continue to be the case.
I might add that I was brought up in a middle class family, money was tight, but I never lived in social housing as a child, and do not now, only briefly whilst married to first husband. Was brought up in the Catholic/corrupt faith. And also always knew where babies came from and how.

My parents had a very sensible approach. They decided that if I was old enough to ask a question, I was old enough to know the answer. As a nurse, my mum gave me the biological facts, when at 2 and a half years (I was a precocious child) I asked "I know that the sperm meets the egg mum, but how does it get there?". As a consequence I have no memory of not knowing about the facts of life, or having to ask around at school to find out what something was. Parents being open, honest and sensible is the best approach! It isn't shocking to think about teaching 6 years old where babies come, it is shocking to think that society is at a point where the state is doing the teaching rather than the parents!

[B.S.M.]

Sarahn, I think that Ireland has so little teen pregnancies is because of influence of Catholic religion rather than sex education.

[Kevin]

As someone that now is responsible for delivering sex and relationship education I think this is a very positive approach. The thing people have to realize is the education package is not simply about this is your penis and this is where you put it. Our package looks at the whole issue of relationships, what is family, what does it mean for us, personal worth, your rights, the law, public and private behaviours, STD's, contraception and consequences of your actions.
When teenagers are pregnant or sat in the GUM clinic its to late.
If people (and that needs to be parents and other adults) feel comfortable discussing a normal and healthy subject like sex and relationships then maybe we can start solving problems before they become the issue.

[Sully]

For those that desire the authority for usurping the family; the real facts of life are;

It' none of your damn
business…….!

[David Farmer]

I believe most children know more then you think, not so sure about 6 year olds and sex though! I feel if true parental responsability was to be applied you would ensure your children knew the right things at the right time and for the parent to listern to their child's concerns even if they seem quite trivil to an adult, this would teach respect and understanding to a child who would have the confidence to ask 'any' question that may concern them such as sex, drugs violence or even school matters!
This whole process is undermined however by the Family Law Courts who allianate the father from seperated kids just at a time it could be cricial to them so no wonder so many head for a life of crime or violence!

[SarahN]

"So why do some groups keep condemning efforts to improve and normalise sex education?"
There is nothing "normal" about forcing the facts of human reproduction on 6 year olds.
And to those who think that early sex education leads to fewer teen pregnancies - that was not my experience growing up in Ireland. There was not much sex education and few teen pregnancies - do you think they might be connected?
Who are these people in the FPA who want to groom our children by teaching inappropriate sexual knowledge, and what's in it for them?

[Rhys Jaggar]

I suspect that the truth is that a percentage of children will do better not knowing whilst the majority will be better for knowing.

The difficult question is: 'how do you identify the two groups in advance?'

I'll let you have a think about that because I have absolutely no solution myself!

[Pat from Texas]

I agree that parents should teach their children about sex because it is so important in life, it should not be left to a science book.
A magazine article asked 3 boys about their criteria for choosing girl friends. They all said they wanted sex first and if that was fine, then they would bother getting to know the girl.
No teacher is prepared to answer this problem. The girl has to be taught her worth first, not to be a toy, not to be used by boys. She has to learn to say no besides knowing the science of reproduction.
On Oprah girls admitted to lining up to service boys because they wanted to be popular. Were afraid to say no.
Children have to know about predators - teen aged ones too.
Science is not enough. Talk is not enough.
Understanding and values taught by parents is what they need, not diagrams in kindergarden.
A girl child knows what she looks like. If she has a brother, she knows what he looks like. If she needs a picture, her mother can draw an appropriate one.

[Delilah]

I think children should know the facts of life by six. Get it all over in a matter-of-fact way so they can ruminate over it well in advance of becoming deluged with teen magazine-style soft porn.

The reason the teen pregnancy rate is so high is not sex education but lack of training in responsibility. Children who learn that they cannot escape the consequences of their actions actually feel more in control of their lives, and are less likely to use other people to justify their life choices - like a sexual partner, a close friend, or even an "accidental" baby.

How is the government planning to teach children to take more responsibility? Or is that somehow taking something away from the government?

[Brian Lewis]

I agree that the truth about sex ought to be known by every child by the time they reach puberty. Truth was not available 60 years ago. But some imply that children are shielded and I am not sure it is as simple as that.
Every child every day sees a man and a woman in bed together (before breakfast!), and that would seem to be a natural part of life, and gives plenty of opportunity to answer questions. Unless of course you refuse to answer!

[kwh]

Its laughable that more or "better" sex education will improve matters.

All the studies cited are a joke as well since they are all authored by "experts" with a vested interest in selling their "expertise" for their own gain, whether financial or political.

Government schools with enlightened experts can't teach easy, simple things like reading and geography well--but somehow they'll do better teaching something that few adults master?

Best to master the simple things you're tasked with first. At the very least, it would help your credibility before claiming more responsibility.

Besides, I hate to break it to you, but sex education is widespread in schools and has been for over 30 years. It would be wise to look at the cultural changes during this period to gauge the track record of such education instead of reflexively demanding more.

[nicky]

This leaflet sounds like it's a non-issue, but on the subject of teenage magazines, there's a huge contrast between the contents of the problem pages of magazines when I was a teenager and now. We used to read questions about 'french kissing' or whatever; now it's about how to give a good blow job! I'm also much less impressed by some of the advice given out in these magazines these days.

I'm not against sex education, far from it, but I do think that more explicit (rather than informative/factual) information is being given at a younger and younger age, and this is not a good thing.

I am annoyed by Jennifer's supercilious tone in the post, and her stereotyping of 'family campaigners'. It's not about teaching shame, it's about caring for children and wanting to pass on moral values, while giving information that's appropriate to the age group.

I'm not anything to do with 'family campaigners', but I do believe in teaching abstinence as well as sex education, which should happen in a natural way, answering questions truthfully as they come up, but trying to give information that's appropriate to the age of the child at that time.

[James Cullup]

I think the problem with Sex Education at school for this age group isn't so much that the information may be inappropriate for the age of the children, as innocence isn't vulnerable to factual information of this nature in my opinion...

The problem is that the State is doing the job of the parent, of which sex education has traditionally sat with the family environment.

My concern with this version of reality is not that this constitutes an assault on the role of the parent and the meddling of the State in private affairs (although it does), instead my concern is that for some parents it absolves them of their responsibility.

Is it only a matter of time until the first teenage pregnancy is blamed on a teacher whom has been judged incapable of successfully covering the facts of life? With the parent shrugging their shoulders outside court, claiming that they would have weighed in but they felt the school handled it?

Parents should relish the opportunity to tackle these issues with their children and help them develop their views on the world and a crowded class-room full of giggling children and an over-worked teacher barely seems a suitable substitute.

[Simon]

Its all very well teaching kids about sex in class, but what they see in society has a much more profound impact.

The answer to teenage pregnancy and STDs is not more education because it doesn't address the problem. The problem is that teenage pregnancy brings perceived tangible benefits. I say perceived because it could be argued that it closes off the real opportunities in life. However, the perception at the time of decision is what is important and I personally know (and many of my friends personally know) young girls (12-13) whose stated intent is to get pregnant and live off state benefits.

As long as the state allows people to evade the full consequences of their actions people will take advantage of that situation. No amount of sex education will change that.

I am not arguing for some right wing agenda here, rather I am suggesting that the state butt out of business which it has no right to be involved in. Educate people so that they are aware of the consequence of an action and that they are responsible for that consequence. Contrary to popular belief this would not undermine society - the opposite is true. If the state takes responsibility away, then when people fall to hard times, fewer people help out - most people say "the state will look after them". The fabric of society is weakened. If individuals take responsibility and a friend or family member falls on hard times then the friends and family look after them - society is strengthened.

So go ahead, teach kids at an earlier age, but don't expect it to fix the problem.

[RamblinglyVeryBored]

Explaining body parts and the purpose of sex will never stop teens. You get a pleasurable feeling from sex. This is what is important. Despite what people will argue and claim are the reasons, its pleasure. It always boils down to pleasurable. Teaching younger won't stop teens. People need to open their eyes and realize its only been recently that teenage sex has been an issue.

Teens have been having sex since the dawn of man. Girls were married off at puberty often. Most the time to older men. Teens were expected to be adults in the old days. They had responsibilities and duties. Nowadays they have ... School. If you're an unlucky teen you have a job too. But neither are a responsibility. Our kids allowed to run around be lazy for 10 more years of their life. People consider it "Okay". So when we remove all the stuff that use to be done, cut the girls from getting married at the same time what do we have? A buncha bored teens with hormones raging .... and nothing required from them in life yet. Their job is to pay for the things they want, not the things they need. So a job isn't a responsibility to them because they could quit. Some are lucky enough that parents dont even make them have a job. School ... but anyone knows these days you don't have to do much in school to graduate. Esp when you can get your GED even easier.

[Yank]

Hannah - while I appreciate your comments and respect the decisions you make for your children, please note this article is about teaching 6 year old sex education whether they ask or not. This is introducing sex to them - not curious innocence - directed knowledge at an age that is too early. There is a time and place and discussion which a parent can decide how it is addressed - not an authority with a booklet and a chalk board.

[John Small]

The bare facts speak for themselves. Countries like the UK and the US where sex education is practically taboo have a higher rate of teen pregancies, HIV and other problems than countries like the Netherlands which have a more mature approach. No amount of outrage can make the facts go away.

[Frank Upton]

It's a pity that 'vagina' is such an ugly word. It sounds like the word for a disease and must put girls off. It also means 'sheath' and therefore implies that the main function of the vagina and its owner is to accommodate a penis.

Unfortunately the proper word for this part of the body is still taboo, so we ought to invent something friendlier.

[Matthew]

Went to a Catholic school, had sex education lessons in the last couple of years. No one was in the slight bit squeemish about this.

There is no point starting them at 6. This is a non issue. Completely vacuous. It sounds more like an anatomy lesson than sex eduction.

What effect does anyone think that this will have on teen pregnancies. Hasn't our current obsession with sex education done enough damage. We have this compulsion that it is proper to treat children as adults and so they are growing up quicker and quicker and no one is seeing any benifit.