Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have for a while now been researching the material being created by sex education providers for our children. I think many parents would be horrified by the material. I am attaching an image from something called The Dice Game created by The Proud Trust. The Dice Game is for 13 year olds upwards.


The material is behind a paywall:

https://www.theproudtrust.org/shop/general-shop/educational-resources-secondary/sexuality-agender-v2/


The way it works is that the six sided dice has a word on each side, Vulva, Penis, Anus, Mouth, Hands/Fingers and Objects. The game is to roll the two dice and then the group will discuss what sexual activity is possible using the two words that face upwards. There?s a grid to explain what is the activity say when anus meets anus or when object meets anus. ?Every combination is worthy of a conversation? says the text and the risks are downplayed. I am attaching a small section of the grid which is all I can do - but I will put some of the text below.


The grid says for example: ?Anus/penis: Sometimes called ?anal sex? this can be a pleasurable experience for the person inserting their penis and the person ?receiving? the penis in their anus. The internal clitoris and/or prostate gland can be stimulated through this kind of sex.? ?Anus/object: the anus can be pleasured by placing objects next to the anus or inside it. The anus responds to temperature, size and movement changes. It is important that objects used in sex are clean. Objects must be smooth, or have ridges, but must be retrievable!? ?Anus/mouth: sometimes called ?oral sex? or ?rimming?. It can be pleasurable for some people to experience giving and receiving oral sex to the anus. You can explore the anus with the tongue and lips by kissing, sucking and licking the area.? ?Anus/hands and fingers: you can touch, stroke or insert finger(s) into the anus ? this is called ?masturbation? or ?fingering.?? ?Anus/vulva: some people enjoy pushing or rubbing their anus and vulva together as the warmth, pressure and moisture can be pleasurable.?


And so it goes on. Remember this is an activity for 13 year olds upwards.


I have been trying to find a website where this material is brought together so that parents can know what is going on. The best I can find is this https://values.foundation/ Hover over 'initiatives' then hover over 'evidence' and you will be lead to a google drive. It is full of documents with material which you really don't want your children to see.


If you have any questions please let me know. I have been researching this stuff a while.

Leaving your particular focus on anuses aside for the moment, I?m trying to imagine the circumstances under which anus might meet anus - and in all honesty, even I?m struggling.


On the subject of things you don?t want your children to see, I feel it my duty to report that by the age of around 14, if not before, there?s a strong possibility that they?ve already seen it. And not as words on a dice.

The point isn't what they have seen or not seen. The point is normalising a whole range of behaviours. Kids may know a whole load of stuff but after half of these RSE classes I would suggest that they are more likely to engage in a whole host of behaviours. And I just don't think this benefits our young people in any way.
Niledynodeli, Thanks for your post. I have told my daughter who has a child starting secondary. Very worrying, I absolutely agree this is about normalising behaviour. Yes we have seen easy access to children via the internet, hence why there are parental controls. Why would 13yr old, or any school age children have to be educated on adults fetishes. Its disgusting. There haz been advice given out regarding safe sex and distancing for adults but its ok for children to be considering many of the behaviours above. Maybe children should be taught respect for themselves and for others in RSE. At a time when voices are being silenced why is it alright these conversations should be put forward to 13yr olds. Thanks again for alerting us.

I think that most young people have so much exposure to more permutations of human to human interaction than is listed here.


Talking about these issues, the mechanics, and importantly the feelings and importance of respect for oneself and others, will help keep young people safe as they navigate the world of love and sex.


Arm them with information, trust them, keep the door open and love them and they?ll be fine. IMO.

From the organisation's website I can see that the Proud Trust is an organisation that that promotes acceptance of LGBTQ+ . As such it does do training in schools about LGBTQ+ awareness. It also works with health workers and other professionals who support young people who are LGBTQ+. Nowhere does it say that this particular resource is for use in schools or as part of the general school curriculum. It only states that they promote awareness and acceptance in schools. This particular material says 13+, but that does not make it appropriate for all teens and the professionals who may choose to use would only do so if they felt it suitable to a particular group they were working with. I think we have an overreaction here trying to shock parents with an extreme example. In this social media age, young people do need guidance on sex and relationships so that they are not misled by material on the internet, or extreme views of others. If you have any concerns about what will be in your own child's curriculum, consult your school.

Since the young and symptom-less are spreading the Covid 19 then any mixing of bodily fluids amongst people from different households should carry a Covid-19 related warning.

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-clusters-linked-to-asymptomatic-younger-cases/a-54293037

Soylent Green - I agree that I have picked an extreme example to shock parents - but I will add that there is an awful lot to choose from and I could have picked many other examples. I also agree that we simply don't know what our children's own schools will use and it is vital keep tabs on this. But all that aside having studied the material (and having done a number of rather dull you tube videos about it) the risk is I think that our children, will, as a result of RSE be more likely to engage in behaviours which won't do them any good. For example the youngest (reproductive) generation are more likely to enage in anal sex than any other generation. If you study RSE across the board you find anal sex consistently promoted. There is also a consistent emphasis on sex for pleasure, I would prefer our children to be taught that sex was a great way of strengthening an already very committed long term relationship. I would prefer that they did not regard sex simply as a way of obtaining pleasure and health which is what is found in the sex positive curriculum. There is also actual encouragement of masturbation across the curriculum - I really don't see that young people need to be encouraged to masturbate. So yes although this was an extreme example - the overall ethos of many programmes I think is not in anyway beneficial to our children.

Actually, the evidence from countries providing comprehensive sex ed is that young people tend to go on to become sexually active later, rather than earlier. The difference is primarily that they go about it in a more responsible, knowledgeable way and are less likely to contract STDs or have unplanned pregnancies. Knowledge is key to making good, informed choices, after all.


As for the portrayal of sex as frivolous fun, well, the reality is that it *is* for very many people. It is perfectly possible to tell young people that for some people sex is an almost sacred act expressing two people's deep love & commitment while for others it's simply fun, like a fairground ride or a super-cheesy pizza. And that it can mean very different things to the same person at different times. That seems the most truthful explanation to me.


I've brought up 4 kids and that's been my approach and whether by luck or by judgment, it's served us all well.

No that is a nonsense about comprehensive sex education having a positive impact on levels of sexually transmitted disease and levels of pregnancy, and age of sexual debut. It does none of those things - those are myths perpetuated by the providers of sex education because there is enormous money in it. Here is a comprehensive review of the data and I can provide you with others.https://www.institute-research.com/published-cse.php


Whether sex is regarded by young people as being like a super cheesy pizza or a sacred act between two people in love (and most ideally married although I acknowledge that is somewhat difficult to achieve!)doesn't just come out of nowhere but depends on what they are taught at school and how they are brought up. I would prefer my children to regard it as something sacred.


Anyway if you would like to know more about what is happening in our schools a review of the resources has just been launched. It sounds as if your children are grown but still you might like to acquaint yourself with some of the resources https://rsereview.org/

You?re quoting research delivered by an advocate of abstinence programme delivery - who conveniently concludes that his belief is the right one. It?s sponsored by Family Watch who say that homosexuality is a mental disorde derived from childhood trauma and advocates conversion therapy.


Both organisations are led by Mormons.

Other research is done by people with a vested interested in promoting sexuality education. Rather than looking at who sponsored the research (and btw thanks for your info I didn't realise that) it is better to look at the quality of the research and the research I have cited is rigorous and thorough. However if you want research by neutral providers please see this Cochrane Review. Cochrane reviews are regarded as the gold standard in all types of research. It confirms what I have said. Comprehensive Sexuality Education is not helping to reduce rates of STD or pregnancy - the purpose for which it was designed. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006417.pub3/full

Thanks, I?ll take a look. Is it all USA based research as there?s enough longitudinal analysis and statistics to show that abstinence based interventions aren?t effective at reducing teenage pregnancy rates or STI transmission.


Qualitative research also indicated a generational negative trend on young people?s mental health and maturity around sexual / relationships education.


Why do you dislike European HSE evidence?

snowy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> Both organisations are led by Mormons.


i wondered whether that was a typo for a mo and you'd added an extra letter by mistake! it made me chuckle and arguably would be right with or without two 'm's

niledynodely Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However if you want research by neutral providers please see this Cochrane Review.

> Cochrane reviews are regarded as the gold standard

> in all types of research. It confirms what I have

> said.


no it doesn't


there's no suggestion that education should be limited to periods and birds and bees

  • 1 month later...

Thanks for informing us about this.

I already knew that many inappropriate things are happening in sex education,

but this game blew my mind! It?s absolutely disgusting and doesn?t teach children anything.

Except perhaps to treat sex with no respect and behave like an animal. It makes me so sad for the new generation!

  • 3 weeks later...

The Department for Education has finally taken note of what is being taught in schools and has issued new guidance, which is very good news as it should keep the likes of Mermaids, GIRES and Stonewall out of our children's school, as well as those peddling other inappropriate materials.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/cancel-culture-gender-stereotypes-and-extreme-political-stances-what-new-dfe-guidance-says-about-rse/

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> niledynodely Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > However if you want research by neutral

> providers please see this Cochrane Review.

> > Cochrane reviews are regarded as the gold

> standard

> > in all types of research. It confirms what I

> have

> > said.

>

> no it doesn't

>

> there's no suggestion that education should be

> limited to periods and birds and bees


The Cochranew review shows that sex education does not help reduce sexually transmitted diseases or teenage pregnancy. The whole basis for sex ed is that this is what it achieves yet rigorous research shows it does not.

Yes I know it has and it is good to know the government listens but with two judicial reviews underway they didn't have much choice. The problem is it is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Schools have already adopted programmes by the inappropriate providers and are not even aware that this new guidance exists.



oimissus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Department for Education has finally taken

> note of what is being taught in schools and has

> issued new guidance, which is very good news as it

> should keep the likes of Mermaids, GIRES and

> Stonewall out of our children's school, as well as

> those peddling other inappropriate materials.

> https://schoolsweek.co.uk/cancel-culture-gender-st

> ereotypes-and-extreme-political-stances-what-new-d

> fe-guidance-says-about-rse/

yes - and that's added to the fact that the EHRC were giving out incorrect information about the Equality Act - how many schools will have gone there for advice and have no idea that what they were given was wrong?


The regulatory capture is a real scandal.

I know. Certain lobby groups have enormous power. The craziest thing about it all is that the lobby groups which have produced the material were actually given the funding to do so by the government. And now the government is effectively turning around and saying the materials you have produced are inappropriate. The govt should have done its homework first.
  • 7 months later...

Call me old fashioned, but I didn?t have sex education at class and I managed to get through my teens without having sex, getting pregnant or getting an STI. We were taught about reproduction, menstruation, sexual diseases and that?s that. We did somehow managed to get hold of one or two porn mags and porn fiction, and at some point I remember seeing a porn film whilst still at school. The emphasis was on any sex talks, at school and at home, was on not getting pregnant and not getting an STI. I think I turned out OK.


The problem are the music videos and celebrities who are essentially soft porn stars marketed as pop/rap/whatever to young people. I am a feminist/girl-power/all-that-jazz but don?t feel the need to showcase my vulva to prove my point, and I don?t get turned on by bare chested men with trousers rolled down showing off their underwear [well done you remembered to put some on all by yourself!] waving guns and calling women b*****s. However kids are growing up believing that this is what you have to do to be ?popular? and ?liked?. Very depressing.

The conception rate in 1971 was 54.9/1000 15-17 year olds, by 1999 it had fallen to 45.1/1000 by 2018 it had fallen to 16.8/1000 (ONS data). While you may ?feel? that your generation turned out better than the kids today the evidence doesn?t bear you out.


Also this thread (not your post but the original posts) have a strongly homophobic tone. You might want to consider whether the original poster is being entirely genuine in their presentation of the curriculum before criticising it.

  • 3 weeks later...

Whilst I haven't read all the information in full, I think it's important that there is a healthy dialogue and discussion around all aspects of sexual health and relationships, the exposure to unhealthy content is very easy and available to access. Being able to discuss this openly and informatively surely is not a bad thing. And yes maybe 13yr olds discussing anal sex may not feel palatable at that age, but it's something that should have an informed dialogue due to the amount of accessible content online.

There was an interesting trial several years ago which involved a professional from the Netherlands educating a class on the uk in a more open way. This helped to give a more balanced and respectful viewpoint, with realistic and healthier expectations.


To the original point regarding the dice game, I imagine this is a way to bring up the subjects informally to open up the conversation, as opposed to some dark alterior motive. Personally, probably far less embarrassing than having to watch a family playing badminton in the nude which was what I had.


Sex Ed is always going to be devisive, but times change and the education has to change with it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...