Europe is weak, corrupt and ripe for conquest

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=7959]WizardofOz[/MENTION], you ask whether this stuff should be on the curriculum, but this ISN'T in the curriculum, and teachers aren't teaching it. This story is not about teachers teaching about oral sex - this is not about a curriculum. This whole thread is about a website that is mentioned as a further resource link in a pamphlet offered to 15 year olds as an alternative to trying to learn from porn films. This is not a curriculum website. It is for interested teenagers to go to themselves if they want to. Do you object to this?

 

[Tambora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/8183f738-4aeb-4a33-923f-5a0df41963f9

Quotes from the article:


The site is primarily intended for 15 – 25 year olds and has been around for almost a decade.


it was recently listed in a youth guide which was distributed to 10 and 11 year-old primary school kids.


Frederic Leire is the father of two children aged seven and nine and he told Flemish TV Channel VTM his kids received the brochure at school.


A spokesperson for Sensoa told Flemish newspaper Nieuwsblad that while the site is primarily intended for those over 15, it still offers a useful resource for younger children.

 

[WizardofOz]

[MENTION=7959]WizardofOz[/MENTION], you ask whether this stuff should be on the curriculum, but this ISN'T in the curriculum, and teachers aren't teaching it.

I am unsure who, exactly, is passing out these pamphlets. Is it educators or employees of the site it self? :idunno:

Belgian media reports the website was listed in the “Youth Guide", an advisory pamphlet supported by the Flemish government which is distributed in primary schools around the northern part of Belgium.

Should this pamphlet be distributed to primary schools?

This story is not about teachers teaching about oral sex - this is not about a curriculum. This whole thread is about a website that is mentioned as a further resource link in a pamphlet offered to 15 year olds as an alternative to trying to learn from porn films. This is not a curriculum website. It is for interested teenagers to go to themselves if they want to. Do you object to this?

"It has reportedly caused concerns among some parents who believe some of the details featured on the site are inappropriate for children." - Do you feel all of the details on the site are appropriate for children? Or are some of the details featured on the site inappropriate for children?

"Teachers have also been quick to voice their apprehensions, telling Belgian media the site is too focused on the technical aspects of sex rather than the emotional."

Teachers are apprehensive about this pamphlet being given to primary school children...The question is, are they right to be apprehensive?

"However, Sensoa representative and youth minister Sven Gatz said he did not see any issue with the site."
"Sven Gatz is the current Flemish Minister for Culture, Youth, Media and Brussels in the Bourgeois Government."

I think he may be posting on TOL as [MENTION=16948]kiwimacahau[/MENTION] :chuckle:

 

[WizardofOz]

Frederic Leire is the father of two children aged seven and nine and he told Flemish TV Channel VTM his kids received the brochure at school.

[MENTION=16948]kiwimacahau[/MENTION] [MENTION=14707]gcthomas[/MENTION] - are you OK with a seven and a nine year old being handed this pamphlet at their school?

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=16948]kiwimacahau[/MENTION] [MENTION=14707]gcthomas[/MENTION] - are you OK with a seven and a nine year old being handed this pamphlet at their school?

I don't know what is on the pamphlet other than the web link discussed, and none her had seen it either. But the link requires web access, and I didn't give my children unsupervised web access at that sge. When I did give access I considered them able to deal with what they were able to find.

Would YOU give such young children free web access?

 

[WizardofOz]

I don't know what is on the pamphlet other than the web link discussed, and none her had seen it either. But the link requires web access, and I didn't give my children unsupervised web access at that sge. When I did give access I considered them able to deal with what they were able to find.

Would YOU give such young children free web access?

No. And you make a fair point but often schools offer children all the internet access they need. Since the pamphlet is being handed out at school and is condoned by their minister for Culture, Youth, Media, I doubt they would have much trouble accessing this site at their school.

Also, feel free to address the other questions I posed.

 

[gcthomas]

No. And you make a fair point but often schools offer children all the internet access they need. Since the pamphlet is being handed out at school and is condoned by their minister for Culture, Youth, Media, I doubt they would have much trouble accessing this site at their school.

Also, feel free to address the other questions I posed.

I'm glad you have abandoned the claim that this is being taught to preteens, but now your complaint is that there might be unsupervised web access without any filtering in place. Web filtering in the EU is universal in schools, based on blacklists and key word lists. There is little chance that these children will manage to find anything interesting on the web in schools.

So no teaching of it and no chance of school based web interaction with the site. The only risk of exposure for these young children you are worried about would be down to the level of parenting, unless you have some more hyperbolic worrying to reveal?

There is nothing left to this story, Woz. It was fake news from the beginning, and it is now just a zombie story - it has taken several head shots, but it is staggering on pointlessly.

 

[kiwimacahau]

I don't know what is on the pamphlet other than the web link discussed, and none her had seen it either. But the link requires web access, and I didn't give my children unsupervised web access at that sge. When I did give access I considered them able to deal with what they were able to find.

Would YOU give such young children free web access?

I pretty much agree with you here. I have no comment to make on it's appropriateness because I have no idea what's on the pamphlet. My kids did not get unsupervised web access until they were in their mid-teens. [Edited to add] But my wife and I ensured that we answered our childrens' questions about matters sexual in an age-appropriate fashion. I note however that not all parents will talk about sex with their children thus schools have had to enter the fray.

 

[rexlunae]

What do you mean by "pushing back on the prudish parents"? Shouldn't parents have the first and final say as to what sex education they receive from their teachers?

No, absolutely not. A lot of parents try to keep their kids from any sex ed. It's one of those cases where kids have a right to a proper education despite their parents wishes if need be.

Why would you want to push back against parents raising their children how they best see fit? Why should a teacher have precedent on this topic when compared to the parents?

Because every child has a right to a proper education, even if their parents want to deny them one.

Curious. While I agree that some parents are unwilling, you seem to be insinuating that you prefer to have children learn about sex from teachers as opposed to parents.

I do. I think that parents are uniquely unsuited to teaching their kids the basic facts about sex. It's awkward for parent and child alike, which often leads to avoidance, and most parents are inclined to view their children as non-sexual beings, which leads to unhealthy delay. That doesn't mean that parents shouldn't impart their values about sex, but in terms of just getting the facts, I think it's better coming from a professional educator.

That's my reservation. Why educators think it's a good idea that children have specific sexual positions and techniques thrown in their face is beyond me.

By and large, I don't think they do. Maybe it's changed since I was 13...

 

[gcthomas]

And to end this daft thread:

 

[WizardofOz]

I'm glad you have abandoned the claim that this is being taught to preteens

I moved past the OP long ago. I got involved in this thread when after kiwi asserted that 7 years olds being exposed to this stuff wasn't so bad. My first post in this thread asked him a hypothetical, regardless of what is going on in Belgium. I'm not sure what claim you think I actually made.

but now your complaint is that there might be unsupervised web access without any filtering in place. Web filtering in the EU is universal in schools, based on blacklists and key word lists. There is little chance that these children will manage to find anything interesting on the web in schools.

So no teaching of it and no chance of school based web interaction with the site. The only risk of exposure for these young children you are worried about would be down to the level of parenting, unless you have some more hyperbolic worrying to reveal?

There is nothing left to this story, Woz. It was fake news from the beginning, and it is now just a zombie story - it has taken several head shots, but it is staggering on pointlessly.

If you don't want to discuss what is appropriate sexual education for children then I guess there isn't much more to discuss :idunno:

 

[WizardofOz]

No, absolutely not. A lot of parents try to keep their kids from any sex ed. It's one of those cases where kids have a right to a proper education despite their parents wishes if need be.

Because every child has a right to a proper education, even if their parents want to deny them one.

I do. I think that parents are uniquely unsuited to teaching their kids the basic facts about sex. It's awkward for parent and child alike, which often leads to avoidance, and most parents are inclined to view their children as non-sexual beings, which leads to unhealthy delay. That doesn't mean that parents shouldn't impart their values about sex, but in terms of just getting the facts, I think it's better coming from a professional educator.

I agree that some form of sexual education is important but I definitely think the parents should have the final say. If they don't want their kids involved, then they should absolutely have that right, prudish or not.

By and large, I don't think they do. Maybe it's changed since I was 13...

Do you agree that schools should not be handing out pamphlets that link to sites that teach teenagers about sex toys, teach oral sex techniques and show a variety of sexual positions?

 

[gcthomas]

Do you agree that schools should not be handing out pamphlets that link to sites that teach teenagers about sex toys, teach oral sex techniques and show a variety of sexual positions?

No, I don't agree. For those teenagers that have been given appropriately free access to the internet, most will find an educaton of sorts from the multitudinous porn sites that depict unrealistic representations of sex and relationships. Given this access, it is important to balance this with representations from educationalists.

Would you, Woz, have older teenagers only accessing the porn sites, given that you won't be able to stop them, or should there be some balance?

(Younger children are unlikely to be accessing these sorts of sites online, for the reasons I gave earlier, so the argument here is really only about the older teens)

 

[WizardofOz]

No, I don't agree. For those teenagers that have been given appropriately free access to the internet, most will find an educaton of sorts from the multitudinous porn sites that depict unrealistic representations of sex and relationships. Given this access, it is important to balance this with representations from educationalists.

Would you, Woz, have older teenagers only accessing the porn sites, given that you won't be able to stop them, or should there be some balance?

False dilemma. Those are not the only two options.

My point is this: the schools should not be handing out these pamphlets without A) telling parents ahead of time so that they have a 'opt-out' option should they deem the material and sites referenced harmful or too explicit and B) making sure these pamphlets don't wind up in the hands of 7 year-olds.

These sites are available for parents to show their children if and when the parents deem their child ready. These should not be handed out willy-nilly with no warning to parents so that they can be prepared to have a conversation with the child should they have questions or be confused about why this pamphlet was handed to them.

 

[gcthomas]

False dilemma. Those are not the only two options.

My point is this: the schools should not be handing out these pamphlets without A) telling parents ahead of time so that they have a 'opt-out' option should they deem the material and sites referenced harmful or too explicit and B) making sure these pamphlets don't wind up in the hands of 7 year-olds.

These sites are available for parents to show their children if and when the parents deem their child ready. These should not be handed out willy-nilly with no warning to parents so that they can be prepared to have a conversation with the child should they have questions or be confused about why this pamphlet was handed to them.

So we are back to the OP now? Lovely.

The Belgian sources suggest that the pamphlet is 'sometimes distributed to 11-year-olds, and a group of parents is now offended." Not 7-year-olds, 11-year-olds. Why do you keep mentioning 7-year-olds even now? What information do you have that I don't?

I agree with (A) that it would be good for parents to see the materials in advance, but again, there is no suggestion that this hasn't happened. Opt-outs? Not sure about that at all, especially as in this case the parents have control over their children's access to the internet (if they don't then they have more immediate problems than their children sneaking a peek at an educational web site).

You should look at the site - it is very sensitively done and spends a lot of time trying to undo the educational damage done by pornographic video websites, explaining the reality versus the image. Not suitable for 7-year-olds, but suitable for teenagers, and MUCH better than the web-based alternatives.

 

[WizardofOz]

So we are back to the OP now? Lovely.

The Belgian sources suggest that the pamphlet is 'sometimes distributed to 11-year-olds, and a group of parents is now offended." Not 7-year-olds, 11-year-olds. Why do you keep mentioning 7-year-olds even now? What information do you have that I don't?

See post #42:

Frederic Leire is the father of two children aged 7 and 9 who received the brochure at school. For him, the information on the website goes too far. "I would even call perversions," he says. "It's good that such a website exists, but I do not think children will ask these questions, how many places there are and whether they need drugs for more sexual enjoyment," Frederic thinks. "Children follow what they feel." link

I agree with (A) that it would be good for parents to see the materials in advance, but again, there is no suggestion that this hasn't happened.

I just showed you (as Tambora did previously in this thread) that parents were not shown the material in advance and it ended up in the hands of a seven year old and a nine year old. I'm sure they were not the only ones.

Opt-outs? Not sure about that at all, especially as in this case the parents have control over their children's access to the internet (if they don't then they have more immediate problems than their children sneaking a peek at an educational web site).

Yes, an opt-out as in 'your child may end up with a pamphlet that discusses sex and links to websites that show sexually explicit material, is this OK with you?'

If a parent does not want their child to be exposed, that is their right. Who is anyone to say otherwise?

 

[gcthomas]

See post #42:

Frederic Leire is the father of two children aged 7 and 9 who received the brochure at school. For him, the information on the website goes too far. "I would even call perversions," he says. "It's good that such a website exists, but I do not think children will ask these questions, how many places there are and whether they need drugs for more sexual enjoyment," Frederic thinks. "Children follow what they feel." link

I just showed you (as Tambora did previously in this thread) that parents were not shown the material in advance and it ended up in the hands of a seven year old and a nine year old. I'm sure they were not the only ones.



Yes, an opt-out as in 'your child may end up with a pamphlet that discusses sex and links to websites that show sexually explicit material, is this OK with you?'

If a parent does not want their child to be exposed, that is their right. Who is anyone to say otherwise?

Where is the interview with the head teacher? Comments from the authorities that mention the same age as the first half of the stories? The comment from one person, presented this as a policy of the nation, has no one else to support his claims. That is odd, don't you think?

You said you had moved on from the OP — it is really time to leave this iffy claim behind and stick to the teenager part of the issue.

So, do you think that porn sites should remain uncountered by sites such as this Belgian attempt? I know you claimed a false dichotomy, but could you expand on the alternative you had in mind to deal with the effects of ubiquitous pornography on the sexual/relationship development of teens?

 

[WizardofOz]

Where is the interview with the head teacher?

Now you're just moving the goal posts.

Comments from the authorities that mention the same age as the first half of the stories? The comment from one person, presented this as a policy of the nation, has no one else to support his claims. That is odd, don't you think?

Are you so incredulous of this father's account? Obviously someone isn't being careful enough with the distribution of these pamphlets.

Why is it bad that a seven year old ended up with this pamphlet?

You said you had moved on from the OP — it is really time to leave this iffy claim behind and stick to the teenager part of the issue.

Or the ten year old part of the issue...

"The website is aimed primarily at young people over 15," says Senso Boris Cruyssaert. "But for young people aged 10 or 11, there is no other site that offers so complete answers, so it's better that they end up on allesoverseks.be."

So, the creators of the site think are suggesting that children as young as 10 are ready to hear about sex toys, oral sex techniques, etc.

What age, in your opinion, is too young?

So, do you think that porn sites should remain uncountered by sites such as this Belgian attempt? I know you claimed a false dichotomy, but could you expand on the alternative you had in mind to deal with the effects of ubiquitous pornography on the sexual/relationship development of teens?

I have no problem with the site, I simply don't think children 7-11 are ready for the content it contains. And again, the parents should be made aware of what educators are doing in regard to exposing their children to such content. I would be appalled if my 10-year-old son came home with this without my prior knowledge and approval. If a parent is OK with it, then fine. If they are not, then their wishes as a parent should be respected.

 

[WizardofOz]

The case for starting sex education in kindergarten

“Who here has been in love?” Anniek Pheifer asks a crowd of Dutch elementary school students. It’s a Spring morning in Utrecht, and the St. Jan de Doper elementary school gym is decked in heart-shaped balloons and streamers. Pheifer and Pepijn Gunneweg are hosts of a kids television program in the Netherlands, and they’re performing a song about having a crush. Kids giggle at the question. Hands — little and bigger — shoot up. Welcome to “Spring Fever” week in primary schools across the Netherlands, the week of focused sex ed classes… for 4-year olds. Of course, it’s not just for 4-year-olds. Eight-year-olds learn about self-image and gender stereotypes. 11-year-olds discuss sexual orientation and contraceptive options. But in the Netherlands, the approach, known as “comprehensive sex education,” starts as early as age 4. By law, all primary school students in the Netherlands must receive some form of sexuality education. The system allows for flexibility in how it’s taught. But it must address certain core principles — among them, sexual diversity and sexual assertiveness. That means encouraging respect for all sexual preferences and helping students develop skills to protect against sexual coercion, intimidation and abuse.

Understanding Sexuality: Grades K-3

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=7959]WizardofOz[/MENTION], you might be interested to know that the Netherlands has a teen pregnancy rate that is eight times lower than the US. Are you sure it the Dutch that are doing sex ed wrong, and not the US?