Thursday, March 11, 2010

Where's the liberal outrage?

When it comes to compulsory sex education in school I am firmly opposed to it for a number of reasons.

First of all, I am against it because I do not see that it is any business of the state. I am, I think, a responsible parent. I know my kids better than any government official and I know when they will need to know about sex and how much to tell them at any given time. As far as I'm concerned, sex education is the job of the parent or guardian and nobody else.

That said, I have no problem with the teaching of the human reproductive system as part of biology as long as it is done in a cold, scientific manner - but this sort of thing isn't usually taught until well into secondary school.

I'm also opposed to it because I do not believe that it achieves its stated objectives - i.e. to reduce the number of young, unmarried girls getting pregnant. Before we had sex education, such things were very rare occurrences, but now they are commonplace. Of course, the liberals like to justify it by reminding us that there was a significant of rise in teenage pregnancies during the sixties - but this is a false argument. Firstly because the vast majority of teenage women getting pregnant during the sixties were older teenagers and married. Secondly, it was the sixties that first saw the introduction of sex education in school and thirdly, there was the "sexual revolution".

I'm also opposed to it because I don't agree with the idea that sex education should be non-judgemental. If you are going to have sex education it should be just the opposite with particular emphasis placed on sex being part of a loving relationship - preferably between a husband and his wife - and that its main purpose is not recreational but to produce children. We all know that most children respond well to clear boundaries - and that includes telling them what is right and wrong. If you do not make this clear when you discuss sex with them then of course they will push those boundaries - its what kids do (as any parent knows). You have to be judgemental with children and in clear terms.

Another reason for my opposition to compulsory sex education is that it will sexualise extremely young children. Childhood is a very precious time for anybody - it is also extremely short in the context of our lives. Discussing sex with young children forces them to think about adult things that they should have no interest in. Childhood should be about playing games, playing with toys, playing with friends - not playing with each others genitals.

Finally, we quite rightly get upset about the abuse of children by Catholic priests - but abuse of our children by teachers is far more prevalent. It doesn't matter if the vast majority of teacher-pupil relationships are consensual or even if the pupil was over the age of consent at the time - it still represents an appalling abuse of power by teachers and a serious cause for concern for any right minded parent.

The idea of letting some unrelated adult discuss intimate sexual detail with a child who is likely to see that adult as an authority figure and, consequently, someone they have to acquiesce to is disturbingly creepy to say the very least. The fact that many teachers go on to use that position of authority as a basis for a sexual relationship with a child in their care would cause outrage amongst the liberal progressives if it was anything other than a state approved official - but they don't mind as long as its one of their own.


Pat said...

Sadly there are parents less responsible than you (or indeed I), so I am in favour of everyone receiving sex education at school.
That said, it should be possible to teach the subject in a few lessons, one devoted to the biology, one devoted to the possible consequences, and one to strategies to deal with those consequences. double it up at maximum to be on the safe side- and that's it.
Go on about it more than that and you exaggerate the importance of sex and encourage unwise experimentation.
Teenagers rarely get pregnant from ignorance of avoidance techniques- that was a cause of the rarer teenage pregnancies from before sex education was common. They get pregnant because the consequences of such a thing are sorted out at other's expense- they have no incentive to avoid it.
It seems to me that educated people on high salaries (who are the ones that didn't have babies as teenagers) think that all teenagers could be like them- and therefor that the incentives that restrained them will restrain everyone. The truth is many teenagers will only give up a lifetime of stacking shelves if they get pregnant- not such an appealing alternative to motherhood as a well paid interesting career.

Anonymous said...

I think that if they are going to have sex education in schools the class should be in the form of a DVD lecture by minister Ed Balls himself.

The association of the bug eyed gimp-boy with bonking would be enough to put the kids off until well into thier twenties at least I'd suggest.

If stronger messages are required we can always escalate to using Gordon Brown, although that of course creates the risk that all sexual contact within society would stop altogether.