In a TV news item, teacher and sexuality educator Kathryn Heape beamingly told a reporter about the policy and how they: “Talk about how the baby grows in the uterus, and talk about how it’s the penis’ job to deliver the sperm to the egg through the vagina”.
Good grief, if that isn’t hard enough to comprehend for a 5-year-old, the notion that the penis actually has a job to perform, to, as it were, put on a suit and tie and march off to work to impregnate an eagerly awaiting egg, is both grand and comic.
The children are also shown what a condom looks like, which infers the nippers are also told that the penis’ job of impregnating an egg is completely redundant most of the time, that the penis is for most of its life a work-shy ergophobe who goes to extraordinary lengths to shirk the job description of a sperm egg collision while still enjoying the fringe benefits of horsing around in the happy hunting grounds of the vagina.
Why a child of such a very young age has to become acquainted with a condom beats me. I tend to agree with the sobbing mother also interviewed in the same TV item who, along with other parents at her children’s school, successfully campaigned against the policy’s introduction. The notion of protection with a capital P seems to have been hijacked by earnest sex educators trying to prevent worst-case scenarios at the cost of a childhood, which by its definition should be allowed a period of grace before signs of biology kick in.