Tonight I watched The Sex Education Show - Stop pimping Our Children, largely because I love a good shot of knob rot and a gander at other ladies boobies, but I am also very interested in the topic of sex education and the sexualisation of the young.
In case anyone is wondering, I am ALL FOR sex education. I certainly don't think there is enough of it, or that it goes far enough in the UK. A belief which I believe is borne out by the teen pregnancy and abortion rates of countries which DO go much further in explicit sex education for YOung kids.
It angers me every time the Daily Mail, and the like, get on their WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN high horse about any hint of a willy being talked about to 5 year olds. The faux horror, as if every parent (and most of those Daily Hail screaming harpies claim to BE parents, which apparently gives them automatic correct answer and a say in every single subject) has NEVER had to discuss with a toddler what a willy is and what makes a girl's body different (what word do you use? If I could be bothered I would start a campaign for a nationally accepted safe-for-kids, happy word to be accepted for the vulva. And NOT a word that is already in use because surely a 4 year old gets confused if she believes she pees from a fairy, then hears that a fairy is Peter Pan's best friend! Perhaps "dilly" or "fooby". Yes, spread the word.)
Kids ARE exposed to sex education every day - they ask questions and understand about why mummy and daddy kiss, they will learn why daddy has hair around his willy, that mummy can't stand up to pee, and maybe when she walks into her parent's bedroom during the middle of the night, why mummy and daddy have a special cuddle.
(My 3 year old niece saw the wallpaper on my laptop, which was of the Josie & John James Titanic shoot "sexy" pic. She asked me who they were and what they were doing. Before I got a chance to explain she said "They're just having a cuddle, aren't they? And they're going to put their pyjamas on in a minute?". LOL It had the ring of an excuse from mummy and daddy I felt.)
If the child has a younger brother or sister, they learn even more about where babies come from as they see mummy's tummy grow and know their little sibling is in there and that daddy (or Uncle Steve) put it there.
This is all the sex education that the government (or lobbyists) intend to implement - the basics that young children can grasp and which gives them a sense of peace and relaxation instead of confusion and uneasiness. One particular piece of over-reaction by the Daily Mail, was over "shocking material" which contained"explicit cartoons" and "adult language". The main target of their horror appears to be a cartoon of a couple in bed kissing, covered up entirely by duvet and the description of sex as "As they cuddled, your dad’s penis moved gently inside your mum’s vagina and the sperms flowed out."
Apparently this description will rot children's minds, cause them all to get tramp stamp tattoos and start humping thier teddy bears. But really, is it THAT different to the description a pregnany mum will give to their child? Simply because the correct terms are used instead of "mummy's magic place", "daddy's special tool" and "special seed" somehow it makes it more offensive or explicit? All it does is make it more factual and less confusing and obtuse.
I live in a town with one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and teen abortion in Europe. I've personally known both boys and girls aged 13 who have been involved in pregnancy. I certainly don't think over-exposure to sensible, factual descriptions of sex acts and sexuality cuase this. Had a contraception message been drilled in to them from a very young age (My mum tells me that when I was very little, on a bus, i once loudly asked "But how do you NOT have a baby?" So I certainly was ready to hear about that) then MAYBE they would have still had sex but maybe the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy would not have happened.
One of the big "fears"of the outraged seems to often be any notion of educating youngsters on other aspects of sex not confined to penis in vagina. When teachers start answering questions fo what a blow job is, or explaining snowballing or Mars bar eating - or other sland terms for sexual practices I've never heard of - then the wailing and finger pointing begins. Why? Because god forbid they find a part of sex is enjoyable.
Somehow it's understandable to teach kids about intercourse because it is important to learn that babies can be made and about contraception. But SURELY one of the best contracpetions teens COULD be exploring is enjoying their sexuality without indulging in baby-making or STI exposing sexual acts?
There seems to be this perception with the young that immediatly you've kissed or decided someone is your boyfriend or girlfriend then BOOM you need to have sex. I remember seeing it on Teen Big Brother. It was barely minutes after a kiss, they immediatly shagged and it was all over in about 5 minutes flat.
Shouldn't we be teaching teens that exploring each other's bodies for a LONG time, can be a great, fulfilling way of being sexual without quite the same risk as intercourse?
Instead of shying away from handjobs and fingering, let's include them in sex education and devote the same amount og time to them that teens should be.
As for WHY kids are having sex so young, I don't think it's a simple problem. I think so many factor contribute including lack of ambition, lack of self-worth and sexualisation of media.
I am as shocked as anyone at pants that says "SEXY" across the bum, for 5 year olds. BUT I do feel there is an element of sweeping generalisation when it comes to clothing, as was shown in tonights The Sex Education Show.
Yes, string bikinis, off the shoulder tops, and high heels for little girls are riduclous. But the bras I do have to defend.
The problem is that girls develop at different ages now, and the average age is getting younger and younger. Sometimes 8 year olds DO need to wear a bra. As a young developer (I was fully developed and having periods by 10) I know how uncomfortable I felt about the whole thing, and the only way I eventually wore bras was when I was able to buy really cute ones from Chelsea Girl (God, I'm old!) and the like. So I can't see how it is bad for shops with clothes ranges for that age group should include pretty underwear sets.
And if another girl aged 8, who hasn't developed at all, sees them it is up to her PARENTS to let her know its not something that's appropriate for her to have at the moment.
Tonight on the show they highlighted 2 items by Peacocks - a 28AA bra and a pair of size 6 pants with a sexy logo. SIZE 6, not age 6. Why should a slim, petite 16 year old not be able to buy fun pants in her size just because a 10 year old might also be able to fit into them? And the same for the bra. My friend was a very skinny girl who did not develop until she was 16. For a couple of eyars she was wearing a 28AA bra, and JUSt being able to buy that made her feel better about herself. If some 9 year old is the same size it's up to her parents to make the call on whether she needs a bra.
It may seem that I'm contradicting myself here - school/government responsibility in sex education but parental responsibility in clothing - but for me there is a difference. Yes, I believe sex education should come first and foremost from parents, but sadly so many are lacking and the governement needs to pick up the slack. Because the kids lives are at stake.
With the clothes, I think it's a personal issue - like deciding if you want your kids to eat sweets or get thier ears pierced - and the government needs to step back.
