I believe that one of the reasons that even non-religious people send their children to single sex schools is because they would prefer for their children not to begin exploring their sexuality until they have matriculated as they risk losing interest in their studies as a consequence and wanting to become adults before their legal time.

I attended a single sex school and I would never do it to one of my children out of choice as I terribly missed my favourite female class mates from Primary School.

Now, knowing how I am myself it ought go without saying that I have some concerns regarding my 15 year old daughter. But more than concerned, I want her to be informed and prepared. What I don't want is for her to suddenly find herself at Uni after High School, with a full set of rights and very little frame of reference.

So, whilst the education department hides its reasons, some insight was provided in advance visa vi the sexually explicit content contained within their health classes.

I haven't read the details of the program in question but based on this thread there already appears to be a lot of unjustified anxst. Even so, the lack of transparency generally from the schools is unacceptable and in part why scandals can go for so long unchecked so I can understand people's unease about a sensitive area which is a bit different for each kid and each family.

We need some links to the primary source, and we also need to establish clearly what is meant by the guvment and also what is meant by eveyone else when it comes to what exactly is meant by the verb, "to sexualise."

//The 'Safe Schools' program was written by those educated in post-structural philosophy, who all lean left socially and economically.//

And all lefties are communists? O....kay.

//So it's okay to sexualise children because it's "the 21st century"? Is this even an argument? Are you sexually attracted to children?//

Wait.. what? Not being a true believer in the International Communist Conspiracy (ICC) makes me a kiddy-fiddler? How is that supposed to work? I fail to see the logical connexion.

Does you think that everybody who isn't paranoid about the ICC is a kiddy-fiddler? Because the statistics don't work out: there are far less paedophiles then there are people who don't suffer from paranoid delusions.

Is there a general rule of thumb that can be applied, whereby disbelief in a particular unicorn is an infallible indicator of some sick sexual perversion? For instance, does a disbelief in David Icke's Reptilian theory indicate herpetophilia (an unhealthy sexual attraction to reptiles)? Does my disbelief that vaccines cause autism make me a necrophile? Does my disbelief that they cause peanut allergies make me a coprophile? Am I a dendrophile if I believe that Saudi Arabian terrorists were responsible for 9/11? If I believe that small quantities of flouride in drinking water a beneficial to public health, am I into BDSM? Am I a rubber-fetishist if I believe that man really did walk on the moon?

In short, if I don't believe in your favourite unicorns, does it necessarily follow that I have some weird paraphilia?

This is your chance to take a free kick, Armchair Critic. I've spent plenty of time rubbishing your favourite unicorns. If you would care to take revenge, you might as well adopt Aristocratic 'logic' and call me a cynophile or whatever.

//there are far less paedophiles then there are people who don't suffer from paranoid delusions//

Sorry, that should have been:

\\there are far fewer paedophiles then there are people who don't suffer from paranoid delusions\\

My bad.

This is what I could find that seems relevant, DreamOn...

http://thelookout.sites.go1.com.au/sites/thelookout.sites.go1.com.au/files/Building-Respectful-Relationships.pdf

To help further, the character card for the 17 year old Megan - referred to in the article and the by-line - is on p. 117 as part of the materials for Session 3 of Unit 2 which is for Year 9 students (who are 14-15 years old). The Session is backgrounded on p. 84.

If you're looking for the 'personal ad' activity, that is on p.36.

Wendy Francis writes, "Teachers are warned - "You will need to explain some abbreviations or get the students to work out what they mean.''" but since the one and only abbreviation is self-defined in 'Aust 32 year old, 5’6” with slim build looking for sincere guy with very good sense of humour (VGSH), good communication skills' I don't understand the need, FFS.

Don't forget to follow the instructions...

"A Read the following personal advertisements and discuss the following questions:
• What are older people looking for in a relationship?
• Does what is important in a relationship change as people age?
• Does it change for same-sex relationships?
• Does it change for cultural reasons?
B Write your own personal ad for the perfect partner."

From WMTrevor's link:

Why do we need the Building Respectful Relationships resource?
The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) commissioned VicHealth to develop a research report, Respectful Relationships Education: Violence Prevention and Respectful Relationships Education in Victorian Secondary Schools.2 This report recommends educating school students about violence, on the basis that ‘schools may be sites of violence perpetration and victimisation’3 , and states that schools are high-risk locations for gender-based violence because of peer influence and a climate and culture of acceptability.

..

• Gender-based violence was estimated to cost the Australian economy a total of $13.6 billion in 2009 (National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and Their Children 2009).

• According to police reports, there were 17,964 incidents of sexual assault nationally in 2002. However, according to the ABS Personal Safety Survey (2006), there were 65,700 incidents of sexual assault against women in 2002.

• For same-sex attracted young people (SSAY), 44 per cent reported they had been verbally assaulted, 16 per cent reported they had been physically assaulted, and 74 per cent of the assaults were reported to have happened at school (Hillier et al. 2010).

• Although there has been some attitudinal change towards violence against women, there are still key community attitudes that indicate a level of acceptance (Victorian Health Promotion Foundation 2010).

..

There may be certain assumptions underpinning this:

1. It's not the role of parents to define the sexual orientation of their children.

2. It's ok to be something other than hetero

3. Its not ok to bully, harrass, threaten, or be violent towards anyone on the grounds of their gender or sexual orientation

4. RPG is a useful tool for teaching people firstly to be aware that other people can be quite different and a useful tool for teaching people to empathise with others, which is in and of itself a behavioral modification strategy.

Putting aside the deviant and perverted nature of the 'Safe Schools' program, the entire curriculum is built on a false premise. Those who wrote the program are trained in post-structural philosophy, which, more or less, reduces all behaviour to a result of 'power structures'; and, that biology itself plays no role and is nothing but another 'discourse of power'.

I urge people to read the literature that 'gender theory' is based on. At no time does it engage with the biological sciences.