Wednesday, April 29, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Unbiased sex education is a child's right

by Andrew Copson - The Guardian

Thanks to Pluvialis for the link.

Reposted from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/28/sex-education-faith-schools

"No parent or school should be able to prevent a young person receiving good, high-quality sex and relationship education." Typical, some would say, of the view of humanists and others who believe that sex and relationships education should be an entitlement for all our children, and are often accused as a consequence of riding roughshod over the rights of some religious parents and the "rights" of religious schools.

But this is not the voice of your stock strident secularist, but a 16-year-old, speaking as a representative of the Youth Parliament today. Young people themselves are some of the strongest supporters (pdf) of sex and relationships education, and recognise that it will improve their ability to deal with the emotional, moral and practical difficulties of adolescent and adult life. The Youth Parliament has been a key leader in the drive for compulsory sex and relationships education, and has called not just for all state schools – including religious schools – to be legally obliged to teach it, but for parents not to be able to opt their children out of it.

It's not a surprise that young people want this education. We know that the sexual health and wellbeing of young people is improved (pdf) by sex and relationships education. We also know that teaching only abstinence in schools has no effect on the likelihood of teenagers to have sex (they are just as likely to do so – it simply means they are less able to take the proper precautions and negotiate complex relationships). Young people have a right to expect that we as a community will provide it for them – and when we say that young people have a right to such education this is in fact literally true. As Article 13 of the convention on the rights of the child says, "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers … "

In the face of overwhelming evidence that sex and relationships education improves the lives of young people, what right do we have to deny them it? If we know that sex and relationships education of an objective sort improves young people's health and wellbeing (and we do) and if we accept that it is the right of the child to receive information of all sorts (which it is) and if we go on to conclude that the responsibility of society is therefore to ensure that all our children receive this entitlement, then why allow state-funded religious schools to do something different? Why in particular, as has been announced today, should the religious character of a school (which may or may not be shared by the school's pupils or their parents) be allowed to skew the sex and relationships education that children receive?
...
Click below to continue reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/28/sex-education-faith-schools

Posted: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 96 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #371229 by littletrotsky13 on April 29, 2009 at 7:14 am

Particularily state-funded ones. You'd think the government would have some form of control over them. Apparently not.
Meaning that the government is funding bad sexual morals (in exactly the opposite way to how fundies would think it).

Other Comments by littletrotsky13

2. Comment #371233 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 7:26 am

This article from a leftie do-gooder has a MAJOR problem:

It is totalitarian in its vision as to what role the school, as provided by the "community", should educate young people in.

Although one might agree that IF schools are to provide sex education, then that education should follow unbiased standards.

But:
Wherever is it written that THE SCHOOL should be obliged to teach such a subject?

Why should THE SCHOOL be the place where every imaginable and unimaginable knowledge that might come in handy is taught?

Isn't it time to regard the school as a place where the topics taught are those that it would be difficult/arduous to be educated in on your own, or through your networks of friends, family and co-workers?

Why should these social arenas be regarded as deficient in their ability to transfer life skills to youngsters?

Other Comments by agn

3. Comment #371234 by flying goose on April 29, 2009 at 7:28 am

Allowing faith schools to skew the curriculum in order to argue against homosexuality and sex before marriage is a mistake

It is also an own goal, but just how many so called faith schools, (How I hate that term) will choose to use that right is debatable, well that's if the C of E school I am a governor of is anything to go by that is.

In Britain we seem to have a culturally bad attitude to sex, we make jokes about but don't really talk about it.

Best sex ed I ever heard of was led by a catholic nun, She asked the the class to call out all the words, I mean all the words we associate with sex as she put them on the black board. That allowed the class to laugh and rid them selves of embarrassment. A very effective lesson was then given. And not the normal catholic guilt crap either.

Other Comments by flying goose

4. Comment #371241 by wetbread on April 29, 2009 at 7:51 am

As frustrated as I get with the religiosity of America, I frequently pity you Brits for not having an equivalent to the First Amendment Establishment clause.

Other Comments by wetbread

5. Comment #371245 by Stephen Fagg on April 29, 2009 at 7:59 am

Church and State separate. There shouldn't be such a thing as state funded religious schools in England, without them we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Cut off their funding and see if they come around to seeing the children's point of view.

Other Comments by Stephen Fagg

6. Comment #371247 by flying goose on April 29, 2009 at 8:01 am

Stephen Fagg

Church and State are not separate in England. Thats part of the problem.

Other Comments by flying goose

7. Comment #371252 by Modo on April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am

"No parent or school should be able to prevent a young person receiving good, high-quality sex

Damn right!

Other Comments by Modo

8. Comment #371256 by Dark Matter on April 29, 2009 at 8:29 am

I just posted this comment on the other thread about this story but I thought that I'd reproduce it here:

"The plans to make personal, social and health education (PSHE) compulsory from the age of five, published yesterday, include a clause allowing schools to apply their "values" to the lessons and another allowing parents to opt their children out on religious grounds."

Thereby making sex education classes worthless and demonstrating once again how the malign influence of religion on the public sphere fosters hatred and divisions in society.

The fact that Ed Balls accepts these plans also shows that the government and the political left is morally bankrupt in its futile attempts at accommodating anti-enlightenment reactionaries. They are as equally guilty as right-wing political parties that cosy up to the fundamentalist believers of Bronze Age fairy tales.

The other day, shallow post-modernist relativist - Terry Eagleton - wrote a very confused article in the Guardian accusing Richard Dawkins and co of being Liberal Supremacists:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/25/liberal-islam

The best response to this rubbish was from JoeinRussia who pointed out:

"Eagleton finds Dawkins et al so distasteful because they threaten the notion of faith. As he himself has admitted, his Marxism is intimately and personally related to his Catholic upbringing.

The critical sentence in this article is:

But liberalism should surely be a passionate conviction.

What is the force behind that 'should surely'? What is most threatening about sceptical liberalism to both Marxists and the Religious is the possibility that a good life could be lived without passionate conviction; or even that an attitude of sceptical detachment is even possible.

That liberals might not be especially passionate about their approach, but simply see it as a practical solution to political problems in the absence of anything better, simply hasn't occurred to Eagleton. In this respect he is far closer to that other pseduo Catholic, Tony Blair, than I'm sure he realises."

So in summary, be especially aware of the lethally "unholy" mixture of political idealism (left or right) and "faith" as represented by the likes of Blair, Brown, Ruth Kelly, etc.

The end result is plain for all to see.

Dark Matter.

Other Comments by Dark Matter

9. Comment #371257 by Tucking_Fypo! on April 29, 2009 at 8:31 am

Children do need decent sex education like that of Sweden, Norway, Switzerland etc. Many parents are too embarressed to talk about sex with their children or they don't care, what children learn off friends is very distorted as most likely their friends haven't had sex themselves and have most likely learnt all they know from watching porn.

There was a programme on Channel 4 recentely called 'The Sex Education Show Vs Porn', the host went to a range of different schools to teach them decent sex education and find out just how much the children of today (and these were 14-15 year olds) knew about sex, and they didn't know fuck all. They didn't know the name for many STIs or knew how exactly you can contract them. The lads idea of breasts were the fake ones you seen in porn films and on TV, when shown pictures of real breasts they were shocked. This goes to show how in need schools are for a decent sex education.

Luckily my school was good on sex education. Once a year from year 8-11 we'd have a Health day where we'd have classes on STIs, Contraception, AIDS, Drugs/Alcohol, ASBOs and the Police. Taking one day a year out of school to teach such important issues will not effect a childs education.

Other Comments by Tucking_Fypo!

10. Comment #371264 by Hellene on April 29, 2009 at 8:58 am

2. Comment #371233 by agn

Isn't it time to regard the school as a place where the topics taught are those that it would be difficult/arduous to be educated in on your own, or through your networks of friends, family and co-workers?

Why should these social arenas be regarded as deficient in their ability to transfer life skills to youngsters?

Because they are deficient. See entry #9 as a example.

Other Comments by Hellene

11. Comment #371268 by Lucas on April 29, 2009 at 9:12 am

Modo, ya beat me to it.

I can't believe this is even still an issue. Do you guys really not have Health class in high school where they describe how a condom works and show you pictures of genital warts and videos of babies being born? Are you just supposed to figure it all out on your own?

I also can't believe agn's post. Are you kidding? Are you actually saying that the science of bodily health and reproduction should not be taught at school? Do you think parents are qualified to teach these subjects? Your whole post just sounds crazy.

Tucking_Fypo - One DAY? We had it in years 9 and 10 for a whole semester, all the basic subjects you mentioned. I have had plenty of sex and consumed plenty of drugs, but to this day have never contracted an STD, created a child, OD'd, or been arrested. All thanks to Health class.

Other Comments by Lucas

12. Comment #371271 by Tucking_Fypo! on April 29, 2009 at 9:16 am

agn is a typical right winder who complains about the youth sleeping around, getting pregnant and contracting STIs, but refuses to do anything about it.

Other Comments by Tucking_Fypo!

13. Comment #371272 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 9:17 am

"what children learn off friends is very distorted as most likely their friends haven't had sex themselves and have most likely learnt all they know from watching porn"

And so what?

What's wrong about having fumbling, humbling first experiences and learn from those??
As just about every human being up till now have done?

Why should a schoolteacher have any special competence at teaching about sex?

Other Comments by agn

14. Comment #371274 by Hellene on April 29, 2009 at 9:18 am

difficult/arduous to be educated in on your own, or through your networks of friends, family and co-worker s?

Yeah I think I'll ask my boss where babies come from.

Other Comments by Hellene

15. Comment #371275 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 9:19 am

"agn is a typical right winder who complains about the youth sleeping around, getting pregnant and contracting STIs, but refuses to do anything about it.
"

Eeh, no.
I think it is a good thing that young people have sex. As much as they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. :-)

Other Comments by agn

16. Comment #371277 by Hellene on April 29, 2009 at 9:24 am

15. Comment #371275 by agn

"As much as they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. :-)"

By spreading AIDS, and having babies at an early age? Do we like taxes going to health care and child support?

Other Comments by Hellene

17. Comment #371278 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 9:24 am

"Yeah I think I'll ask my boss where babies come from."

I said "life skills", and those include much else than sex.

For example about how to behave among co-workers, which is something to learn from them, rather than from a teacher in a theoretical, abstract way in a dusty classroom years before you meet your boss or co-worker.

Other Comments by agn

18. Comment #371280 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 9:27 am

"By spreading AIDS, and having babies at an early age? Do we like taxes going to health care and child support?
"

And please tell me why a schoolteacher would be the individual most effective in inculcating a healthy, enjoying attitude towards sex amongst youngsters?

Other Comments by agn

19. Comment #371284 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 9:31 am

"Are you just supposed to figure it all out on your own?

I also can't believe agn's post. Are you kidding? Are you actually saying that the science of bodily health and reproduction should not be taught at school?"

No, I am not.

Other Comments by agn

20. Comment #371285 by Hellene on April 29, 2009 at 9:32 am

17. Comment #371278 by agn

Red Herrings anyone?

18. Comment #371280 by agn

Perhaps because they receive training and follow ciricullum written by professionals?

Other Comments by Hellene

21. Comment #371287 by Tucking_Fypo! on April 29, 2009 at 9:33 am

Sex education isn't showing children different positions and the best way to give girls an orgasm, its about telling children about condoms, the pill along with other contraception. Inform children about STIs and show pictures to show just how bad they are and to tell the effects they have and how easy they are to pass on.

Other Comments by Tucking_Fypo!

22. Comment #371288 by Tucking_Fypo! on April 29, 2009 at 9:35 am

During my health days it wasn't the teachers who taught us, they brought in specialists to teach us.

Other Comments by Tucking_Fypo!

23. Comment #371289 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 9:36 am

"18. Comment #371280 by agn

Perhaps because they receive training and follow ciricullum written by professionals?

"

Hmm..I would have thought that having an actual lover would teach you a lot more about good sex than any schoolteacher ever can.

But not in your world, obviously..

Other Comments by agn

24. Comment #371290 by Rikitiki13 on April 29, 2009 at 9:36 am

Excuse me while I get metaphorical here...

I do a lot of hiking in the woods. Navigation is important for survival.

Education is learning the skills of how to navigate through life.

Religious education on sex is equivalent to equipping children with an erroneous map -- or no map at all.

Allowing faith-schools to teach their subjective versions of sex education is equivalent to handing out compasses that don't point North. Not only is this fact not disclosed to the recipients, but they are told these devices will enable them to find their way.

No wonder so many get lost.

Other Comments by Rikitiki13

25. Comment #371291 by chewedbarber on April 29, 2009 at 9:36 am

Why should these social arenas be regarded as deficient in their ability to transfer life skills to youngsters?

Uh, because they are?

Other Comments by chewedbarber

26. Comment #371294 by Roger Stanyard on April 29, 2009 at 9:38 am

Wetbread says

As frustrated as I get with the religiosity of America, I frequently pity you Brits for not having an equivalent to the First Amendment Establishment clause.

I disagree strongly. The USA is awash with fundamentalism and wackjob religious denominations who both directly and indirectly strongly influence education.

whatever the faults of the Church of England are, it has largey protected us from religious extremism for the last 350 years. There is also a strong argument that the CofE's still significant involvementi in education lagely keeps the extremists out today.

As ffar as I am aware thereare only 4 universites in Britain (out of well over 100) that are christian and all four are pretty lowly in status and none are anywhere near fundamentalist in nature.

In contrst there seem to be hundreds of institutions in the USA claiming to award degrees but which are either fundamentalist bible study institutions or little better.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

27. Comment #371295 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 9:38 am

"Religious education on sex is equivalent to equipping children with an erroneous map -- or no map at all.

Allowing faith-schools to teach their subjective versions of sex education is equivalent to handing out compasses that don't point North."

Certainly.
And that is why I said that IF schools are to teach about sex, then they'd better follow unbiased standards.
And in that respect, faith schools fail
miserably.

Other Comments by agn

28. Comment #371298 by chewedbarber on April 29, 2009 at 9:43 am

Roger, I also wonder what the hell these degrees from Bible Colleges mean.

I guess religion can be thought of as an industry in the US. I wonder what the current trends are?

Other Comments by chewedbarber

29. Comment #371299 by Hellene on April 29, 2009 at 9:43 am

23. Comment #371289 by agn

"Hmm..I would have thought that having an actual lover would teach you a lot more about good sex than any schoolteacher ever can. "

Ok that was a immature statement. See post #21.

EDIT: They need to have classes for adults it seems.

Other Comments by Hellene

30. Comment #371300 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 9:44 am

"Uh, because they are? "

I pity you for having found your girlfriends utterly unable to help you develop a competent sex life, your sole education on these matters being what you were taught in school..

Other Comments by agn

31. Comment #371302 by Tucking_Fypo! on April 29, 2009 at 9:48 am

agn you obviously know nothing about this issue, if you have 4OD search 'The Sex Education Show Vs Porn' to see exactly what sex education is. Having only just left school 4 years ago and having recieved decent sex education (which wasn't from teachers, but from people being brought in) i know what sex education is about. I don't think i heard about positions, the clitoris, the G spot, blow jobs (unless refering to a way of contracting an STI) once.

Other Comments by Tucking_Fypo!

32. Comment #371303 by Hellene on April 29, 2009 at 9:49 am

30. Comment #371300 by agn

We are talking about health and economic issues, and you pull this down to the level of sexual bravado?

Other Comments by Hellene

33. Comment #371308 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 9:56 am

"agn you obviously know nothing about this issue, if you have 4OD search 'The Sex Education Show Vs Porn' to see exactly what sex education is. Having only just left school 4 years ago and having recieved decent sex education (which wasn't from teachers, but from people being brought in) i know what sex education is about. I don't think i heard about positions, the clitoris, the G spot, blow jobs (unless refering to a way of contracting an STI) once. "

Something you equally well could have learnt about elsewhere.

Did it further your ability to gain professional skills to make an income and become an independent person?
That's all the justification there is for having a tax-based school system.

If it did not further your professional skills, the school should not have wasted time and money on it.

Other Comments by agn

34. Comment #371309 by Tucking_Fypo! on April 29, 2009 at 9:59 am

So schools should not bring in a nurse to give vaccinations as this has nothing to do with our professional skills. They shouldn't teach about drugs, laws etc either?

You really do have a distorted view on the school system.

Other Comments by Tucking_Fypo!

35. Comment #371310 by chewedbarber on April 29, 2009 at 10:01 am

I just assumed it was understood that education at school can provide a real benefit to people who have to live in the real world, a world where family, friends and society at large can't be trusted to always provide such benefits.

In fact, I imagine that most of us here understand that the situation of many young people is exactly the opposite of the fantasy you describe. Instead of receiving an education (something in this case that encompasses much more than knowledge) they are filled with all the insecurities or worse of their similarly uneducated family, friends and coworkers.

Other Comments by chewedbarber

36. Comment #371311 by hungarianelephant on April 29, 2009 at 10:02 am

33. Comment #371308 by agn

Did it further your ability to gain professional skills to make an income and become an independent person?
That's all the justification there is for having a tax-based school system.

Ah, the old cost-benefit analysis. The ultimate end of treating people as economic units instead of people (a trap for both left and right).

Let's go along with that for a moment.

How many working days do you suppose are lost to the treatment of STDs? What about tax dollars spent in welfare to teenagers who have unplanned pregnancies? Have you factored all this in?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

37. Comment #371312 by Inside centre on April 29, 2009 at 10:03 am

Comment #371308 by agn

"Did it further your ability to gain professional skills to make an income and become an independent person?"

"If it did not further your professional skills, the school should not have wasted time and money on it."

Surely not all school lessons are aimed at people earning money from it in the long run. Otherwise we'd all have done business studies at school.

Is school not, first and foremost, geared towards providing an education?

Other Comments by Inside centre

38. Comment #371313 by Hellene on April 29, 2009 at 10:08 am

33. Comment #371308 by agn

"Something you equally well could have learnt about elsewhere."

Emphasis on "could". But they don't learn it elsewhere. That's the point. And their lack of knowledge costs the taxpayer.

Other Comments by Hellene

39. Comment #371318 by Roger Stanyard on April 29, 2009 at 10:28 am

AGN says

Utter crap.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

40. Comment #371320 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 10:33 am

"How many working days do you suppose are lost to the treatment of STDs? What about tax dollars spent in welfare to teenagers who have unplanned pregnancies? Have you factored all this in?
"

Have I ever said one should NOT teach about STDs??

1. In a general curriculum, prior to intensive specialisation, we evidently need some input on biology and anatomy, since these are topics that may well come in handy for future, professional life (in a stronger degree than, say, to learn Latin). It will, of course, be perfectly appropriate within the anatomy context to learn about the reproductive system, whereas in totally different classes, when diseases and epidemiology are taught (useful subjects, too!), it is natural to learn about STDs.

2. In economics/social sciences classes (also useful topics), it will, indeed, be relevant in analyzing different social groups to study the impact of early teen pregnancies, and their strong correlations to maintenance of/ generation of poverty.

3. In philosophy/ethics classes (that will be highly useful for many), ethical dilemmas concerning sex can be stimulating to discuss, from which much can be learnt.

And on, and on, and on, as long as the topics included in the curriculum can be justified to be useful in developing an independent adult with skills others will appreciate.
And that those topics are taught in an appropriate setting.

There is no point in lumping together all these varied topics in a single, pointless category of "sex education".

Other Comments by agn

41. Comment #371326 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 10:47 am

" The ultimate end of treating people as economic units instead of people (a trap for both left and right).
"

No.

But it doesn't follow that THE SCHOOL should be the primary place where people are taught that people are people.

That's what friends&family can tell you, at least equally well, if not better.

The school can concern itself with professional skill development.

Other Comments by agn

42. Comment #371331 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 10:59 am

"They shouldn't teach about drugs, laws etc either?
"

And why shouldn't youngsters with aptitudes for becoming police officers or lawyers gain first introductions about such important topics??

I don't get the analogy..

Other Comments by agn

43. Comment #371332 by Hellene on April 29, 2009 at 11:06 am

40. Comment #371320 by agn

"There is no point in lumping together all these varied topics in a single, pointless category of "sex education".
"

Yes there is a point. Either you've missed it, or you're being disingenuous.

Other Comments by Hellene

44. Comment #371334 by agn on April 29, 2009 at 11:10 am

"Yes there is a point. Either you've missed it, or you're being disingenuous.
"

Okay. Bear over with my disingenuity and spell that out.

Other Comments by agn

45. Comment #371335 by Lucas on April 29, 2009 at 11:12 am

agn is quickly transforming into a troll. I suggest we withhold all food until he/she becomes human again.

Other Comments by Lucas

46. Comment #371339 by Rikitiki13 on April 29, 2009 at 11:23 am

agn -

"That's what friends&family can tell you, at least equally well, if not better."

I can only speak for myself, but growing up my 'tribe' (friends, family, religious) taught me: Blacks are people too -- just not equal-to-us-people, homosexuals (which we don't have in our community) are perverted and to be feared and loathed, sex is only for marriage (and not something proper people talk about), drugs£ what drugs£ only 'those' people do drugs and they don't live here...and many more powerful myths.

No, friends and family can't teach you 'equally well' -- but they can indoctrinate you 'better'.

Other Comments by Rikitiki13

47. Comment #371341 by Bonzai on April 29, 2009 at 11:31 am

agn

That's what friends&family can tell you, at least equally well, if not better.

Not to mention porn. :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

48. Comment #371343 by root2squared on April 29, 2009 at 11:48 am

As long as they don't start with bestiality.

Or the wrong category - "oh but the guy on screen has a guy and I have a girl. What do I do now?"

Other Comments by root2squared

49. Comment #371345 by Sauveterre on April 29, 2009 at 11:54 am

But it doesn't follow that THE SCHOOL should be the primary place where people are taught that people are people.

One should hope it isn't the *primary* place, and that people learn this at home, as well. But for some people, it will be, because their parents are ignorant or superstitious. What is wrong with offering one additional place for unbiased, correct information? Those who are getting good info at home will hear the same story twice, and those who aren't will at least have the opportunity to hear it.

A school is for teaching children anyway, so I don't know what the harm of teaching correct, reasonable material on one more subject is.

Though if your opinion on school were followed, I suppose schools would offer no instruction on anything not related to a person's 'trade', which is, by the way, completely meaningless when the person in question is just a child.

Other Comments by Sauveterre

50. Comment #371348 by Hellene on April 29, 2009 at 12:05 pm

44. Comment #371334 by agn

"and spell that out."

Post #49 among others.

Other Comments by Hellene

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last