GTFO! you cannot be serious.... locally, I understand that 1/4 of all girls here between 10-14 have gonorrhea....
I agree. I certainly had no interest in the human body when I was that age. I think it's appropriate to talk about abuse and privacy in children's terms, but I think the comic- if aimed for 1-3 graders- doesn't need to have labeling.I think this thread's already been done. <.>
Anyway, that's ridiculous. And vaguely creepy. Six-year-olds don't need to know about this stuff yet. Not to this extent, anyway.
I still think it goes too far for the the age group. And is probably welcome and accepted among the pedophilia crowd.I can honestly say after viewing the pamphlet that story blows it way out of proportion. Yes there are two naked pictures, but all that is their is little boxes to label each part. Obviously at that age kids are aware of the fundamental difference between boys and girls.
The rest is as bland and tame as anything that comes from the government.
You can view it for yourself at
http://www.fpa.org.uk/attachments/p...sha and Joe 2008 larger file non printing.pdf
I just looked at this...the labeling is ridiculous. I think kids at that age know what's what, and this document goes a bit too far as well.I agree. I certainly had no interest in the human body when I was that age. I think it's appropriate to talk about abuse and privacy in children's terms, but I think the comic- if aimed for 1-3 graders- doesn't need to have labeling.
Unfortunately ... no. I heard this on the radio about 5-6 months ago during a "teen pregnancy is way up" report.
As would I, but then we share a commitment to being present and available to our future children. Unfortunately, I suspect this commitment is not universal - I see it routinely in school interactions, and reported in friends of mine who have children.If i was a parent, I would view this state sanctioned comic as an invasion of my family, and my right to choose when and how to begin educating my kids on the biology of the opposite sex and the safety, or not, of being approached by others, etc....
As long as the parent draws the line and follows up, then all is well. The problem occurs when parents don't do this, or when playground rumors supersede scientific fact. Then it becomes incumbent upon the state (nanny or not) to give the children some modicum of education, if for no other reason than reducing future payout costs of the tax-paying base."The pamphlet, created by sexual health charity the FPA, could be shown to all school kids unless parents opt out."
The line is wherever the parent says it is.
Absolutely agreed, and I've highlighted the point above, which forms the crux of the issue.Schools have always taught sex education, often with text books or other kinds of material. Sometimes this takes place in health class. I suppose this is yet another approach. Where should children learn, especially if parents are too embarrassed to do it, or don't have the time? Of course, age appropriateness may be the issue here. There is a time and place for all things. We teach sex education to some extent at my junior high school.
This unfortunately doesn't surprise me, and unfortunately these are the children who are least likely to have two parents able, willing, and equipped to interact with their children. And so ... the cycle continues.We also have to teach them about statutory rape, because our inner city kids don't know what that is, but they certainly are having sex. Every year we send several girls to the alternative school for pregnant junior high girls.
I tend to agree with you there, basic info about the body that parents "supposedly" are afraid to give out. But as Lil Snap said, it IS an invasion of the family. My mother actually showed me a medical drawing of the inside of a penis when I was four or so, that wasn't so bad, I wanted to know wtf it looked like. But she never really told me wth female genitalia looked like, I never asked my dad, so that came at age 12 via watching pornography that I finally figured "HOLY SHIT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT OMG ZOMG!".The article isn't doing a good job explaining what the comic is. The bulk of article is dedicated to myths concerning sex and how parents can talk to their teenagers. But notice this quote from the top of the article:
"Let's Grow with Nisha and Joe contains cartoon-style pictures of a naked boy and girl to teach children about different parts of the body. "
The comic is teaching kids about their bodies in the same way that a book will teach a twelve year old about puberty. I see nothing wrong with that. If you recall from the previous election, there were allegations that Obama voted to teach six year olds sex education. Like this comic book, Obama voted to allocated funds to a program to teach six year olds about their bodies and how to be safe, ie how to not be kidnapped and molested. Again, nothing wrong with this. These types of education are age-appropriate, and we are obligated to give unbiased information when children need it. This comic isn't a how-to manual. It's a biology text book for kindergartners.