Twelve-year-olds are being taught about anal sex in school while nine-year-olds are told to 'masturbate' for homework: The shocking lesson plans used by teachers in UK classrooms

submitted by [deleted] from dailymail.co.uk

all 30 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 14 fun6 insightful - 13 fun7 insightful - 14 fun -  (5 children)

If I was told to masturbate for homework I would have gotten much better grades

[–]UncleJemima 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Moreover those lesson plans are for one class in a course for someone who is 16 or 17 or 18 in the UNITED KINGDOM, where one can see all of that and much more on TV (and online). UK TV after 9 pm has shows with nudity, discussions of sex, documentaries on prostitutes and professional BDSM people, and so much more. Movies in 'Freeview' TV are edited so that the bits where someone is shown at the moment of being killed are deleted, whereas the bits with boobs and other nudity remain in the movies. In the US it's the opposite - you watch people being murdered on TV, but no boobs. Anyhow: absolutely nothing shocking in OP's post, not if you live in the UK, and there are no crazy parents hijacking school boards. No one's worried about sex education in schools, unless they're Muslim, but there are also no complaints from Muslims.

[–]jet199 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, you are missing the point that kid's should not be learning about sexual technique in school. There's absolutely no need for that. The fact they can see this stuff elsewhere is normal for that age group and not in any way a reason why they should be teaching it in schools. So what is the why?

The facts behind this are that this approach has been pushed for years by peados like Tatchell who want kids groomed to be able to pleasure them as they would like. Rather than kids learning about their own and each other's bodies by having relationships and messing around, which is healthy and normal, they are being primed to serve adults. They are literally instilling that certain acts are standard and should be expected when in fact even among gay men there are a large number who never have anal sex for good reason.

[–]UncleJemima 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

kid's should not be learning about sexual technique in school.

Fair point - though I'm not sure that's literally what's happening. Perhaps schools texts should be less specific. When I read the sex education page in my biology text book long ago I don't recall anything more than very basic pictures explanations of fertilizaiton of an egg.

The facts behind this are that this approach has been pushed for years by peados like Tatchell who want kids groomed to be able to pleasure them as they would like.

OK - ya lost me. I've not seen any evidence of this. If the Daily Fail could show this I'm sure they'd be happy to run it on the front page. Perhaps there's a secret group devoted to including in school textbooks advice on grooming kids to serve adults and we'll see news of that next week. Sorry, I just haven't seen that level of insanity.

2 problems: perhaps school texts should not be that explicit, though let's be honest that the recent movement against education, schools, teachers, kids, books, libraries &c is POLITICAL, part of a fascist playbook reminiscent of 1930s Germany, and a trend intended to help right-wing politicians get elected. That's more obvious than the assumption that kids are reading sections of 'The Joy of Sex' in school.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

where one can see all of that and much more on TV (and online)

Yeah, I'm with you on this. Kids have cell phones, Pornhub doesn't check your government ID yet, I don't think kiddos are going to school libraries to look for smut. I have no problem with sex-ed anyway, I just don't want them teaching kids non-scientific gender ideology in the curriculum, but if they wanna put gender whacko books in the library that is perfectly fine with me.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

👎

[–]P-38lightning 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I was a kid in the 60s and 70s. If this happened back then the fathers would've handled it very quickly.

Any teacher would have been beaten unconscious in the parking lot after school. The principal the next day just to make sure the message was clear.

[–]KyleIsThisTall 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

fathers

THERE'S the problem!

What fathers???

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I was reading the list of school shootings prior to 2000 on wikipedia the other day. They go back to 1840, and a surprisingly large percentage of them were parents/family members coming to school to shoot the teacher/principal who beat/otherwise messed with their kid.

[–]LordBeetusRises 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's too bad that fell out of style. At this point, I wouldn't lift a finger to "protect" any of these educators. I'm still an NAP believer, but I'm at the point where I'd watch a full on democide against these sick fucks, and I won't lift a finger to stop it.

[–]hfxB0oyA 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

"If we can't teach your kids about anal sex, then how do you expect us to be able to have anal sex with your kids??"

[–]thomastheglassexpert 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm so old I remember when doing such as this would get you tossed in prison where the real rapists are waiting for child sex predators.

[–]IndianaJones 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

When Babylon Bee articles are no longer satire.

we live in a gta parody

[–]tomatopotato 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It follows a concerned mother being denied the right to see the content of the lessons being taught to her 15-year-old daughter in her Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) classes, which became compulsory three years ago.

Despite a judge refusing Clare Page the right to see the material, MailOnline can reveal that a wealth of questionable teaching resources are already available online.

Are the court docs available?

[–]bucetao6969 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And then the west wonders why they are the TERF island.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I wouldn't put a lot of weight on the Daily mail's reporting on something that they could manufacture outrage over.

[–]LordBeetusRises 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Curious about that myself, but is there a counter argument from your side of the aisle?

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why would that change the facts?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It wouldn't change the facts.

However, the facts are unlikely to be reported in this story from the Daily Mail. If you're interesting in knowing what the facts are you might need to go to another source.

Perhaps the Department of Education.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

A rather moot point considering the same could be said of any media outlet.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What's your best instance of The Economist manufacturing outrage over factual reporting?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Enough with the whataboutery. What topic of interest would even be published in The Economist worth discussing here?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Enough with the whataboutery.

It's not clear that you know what whataboutery is.

What topic of interest would even be published in The Economist worth discussing here?

A few from this week would be:

The Ukraine war

The China's increasing dominance over the US in indo-pacific trade

The Chinese perspective on the coming Taiwan war

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

All media relies on sources, of which can be unreliable, even those from government or military due to the possibility that they are withholding information or fabricating information as a means to protect themselves from embarrassment or to push propaganda. Even the most polished of media outlets fall victim to publishing nonsense from time to time. Simply plucking a single outlet out of a hat to use as an example is meaningless when my original statement was broad and generalised. Should I now pick examples? What would be the point?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some journalism is well regarded, even in this age of native advertising and clickbait.

The Economist makes predictions, and, as such, is often wrong. It also has a point of view, and will give an opinion. But it is not conflated with the reporting of facts. But I'm not aware of them publishing "nonsense" in the sense of poorly fact-checked journalism. Do you have an example?

Should I now pick examples?

If you can.

What would be the point?

I would show that you are right that "Even the most polished of media outlets fall victim to publishing nonsense from time to time", and that I am mistaken about the journalism standards at The Economist.

[–]fmj77 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Didn't this used to be called "contributing to the delinquency of a minor"?

[–]jw329 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I remember miss williams back in grade 1. She had the nicest boobies. I was used to stare at her boobies even at that young age. I wish she would of masturbated me even though i had no idea what masturbating was. Would that of affected me growing if she really did it?

[–]LordBeetusRises 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You know that you're still advocating for pedophilia, right?

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, it would have made you fixated on that type of women for the rest of your life and likely made you look for the same kind of power dynamic in relationships as well.

[–]exceed0153 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

honestly? maybe its better that kids get taught about this stuff this kind of way instead of the default option of "let kids loose on the net to discover what sexuality is through whatever random porn they happen to find"