Yep, they want to start teaching our kids how to have sex at the age of four and make it compulsory.
They argue gradual education from such a young age would help children not to rush into sex when they were older.
Children aged four might be taught about the names of body parts and basic ideas about different relationships.
What a load of progressive liberal propaganda nonsense.
Brook chief executive Simon Blake said: "Many young people are having sex because they want to find out what it is, because they were drunk or because their mates were."
I agree that they are having sex because they were drunk or because their mates are, but that's a different issue entirely - but the first part of that is totally wrong. They know what sex is - they want to know what it is like. There is a big difference between the two.
He added: "All the evidence shows that if you start sex and relationships education early - before children start puberty, before they feel sexual attraction - they start having sex later"
What evidence? Evidence like this which the BBC tacks on the end of their article.
Sixteen-year-old Bethany, from Norwich, who lost her virginity when she was 11, told BBC News she had not understood the consequences of having sex.
"I didn't know I could get pregnant," she said. "I think if they started introducing sex education a bit earlier and teaching us a bit more about it so that we were more aware it would have helped me a lot."
Bethany from Norwich? No surname, just a general area and a tiny anecdote to offer up as evidence that sex education would have stopped this child having sex at 11 years old. Well, what about Bethany's background? Parents married or divorced? Well off or from a poor area? Did she know it was illegal?
The fact is there is no evidence whatsoever that sex education has any effect on children's sexual behaviour. None.
What they claim is evidence is just anecdotal or, even worse, correlation. Well how is this for a correlation - before we had sex education in this country there were very few unmarried mothers, few people having underage sex, std's were rare and abortions were few and far between. Since they introduced sex education all instances of these things have rocketed.
So that proves sex education causes promiscuity, doesn't it?
A lot of people point to "liberal" countries as examples where a high level of sex education seems to have an effect - like Holland. But Holland, remarkably, isn't as tolerant or liberal as people would have you believe. For a start, if a young girl gets pregnant before the age of 16 she will not get any help from the state. None whatsoever.
Secondly, Dutch society is remarkably judgemental about teenage sex. It still carries immense shame to be an unmarried mother and even greater shame to be a teenage unmarried mother. The reason Holland has fewer instances of teenage pregnancy has nothing to do with sex education - it's just societal pressure.
Kids aren't as dumb as we make them out to be. They know damn well what sex is and that is illegal under the age of 16 - just as they know cigarettes and alcohol are bad for your health and illegal for them. But kids, being kids will always do what they think they can get away with. Every responsible parent knows that and that is why every responsible parent lays down their own rules of behaviour.
The difference is that a responsible parent enforces those rules and punishes the child when they break that rule. The irresponsible state educationalists just tell them it's OK, but to be more careful in future.
No comments:
Post a Comment