The amoral ideology of
sex education
Chapter 2 from Lessons in Depravity by ES
Williams
We have seen the Government’s confident claim that sex
education is the answer to the sexual tragedies that are now so common in modern
Britain. We are all familiar with headlines drawing our attention to the latest
teenage pregnancy drama, reporting the birth of a baby to some unfortunate 12 or
13-year-old girl who did not know how to ‘protect’ herself. After the usual hand
wringing, there is the inevitable cry from the experts for more sex education,
and for it to start at an even earlier age. Except for a few voices advising
that children should be taught the value of sexual abstinence, there are no
alternative proposals as to how society should deal with these distressing
tragedies. Although a recent publication by the Christian Institute, Sex
Lessons for Kids, caused quite a stir among those who saw the explicit
nature of the teaching materials, only a handful of parents have any idea about
the messages that are being imparted by sex education. Furthermore, the majority
of parents have put their faith in sex education and are quite content, even
relieved, for their children to be taught about sex at school.
In order to understand the messages that are being delivered
to children, in this chapter we examine some of the teaching techniques and
materials used by those involved in sex education. Most of the materials have
been produced by the Family Planning Association (FPA), the Brook Advisory
Centres (Brook) and the Health Education Authority (HEA). While the HEA (it
changed its name to the Health Development Agency in April 2000) is a Government
quango, the FPA and Brook are registered charities which receive large amounts
of public money to support their work in sex education. Brook’s Making sex
education easier is an example of a catalogue which provides sex education
resources and literature ‘to help teachers fulfil the requirements of the
National Curriculum’.1 Within the NHS, health promotion departments, attached to
district health authorities, and more recently to primary care trusts, are
responsible for delivering sex education at the local level. In most areas
health promotion experts work closely with local education departments and
schools, making available, for those schools that want them, the resource
materials required for delivering sex education. In West Sussex, for example,
the health promotion department produced a booklet, Guide to Secondary School
Sex Education Resources, which listed a wide range of sex education
materials available for use in local schools.2 While many teachers make use of
these resources, others do not, for each school is responsible for the type of
materials used in their sex education lessons. Having said that, there is no
doubt that the majority of resources that find their way into schools come from
the HEA, the FPA and Brook.
Sex education guidance for schools
In 1994 the Conservative Government issued guidance which stated that sex
education must not be value-free. ‘Pupils should be encouraged to appreciate the
value of stable family life, marriage and the responsibility of parenthood. They
should be helped to consider the importance of self-restraint, dignity, respect
for themselves and others, acceptance of responsibility, sensitivity towards the
needs and views of others, loyalty and fidelity.’3
The FPA, while conceding that sex education could not be
value-free, expressed the view that ‘the question of what constitutes a moral
framework for sex education in schools is an open one’. The problem, as the FPA
saw it, was that ‘teachers and governors sometimes feel under pressure to select
and promote values which they, their pupils or the local community may not own
or be comfortable with. People of all ages are caught in a moral dilemma…
Perhaps they believe that everyone should wait to have sex until they are
married or perhaps they want to celebrate the fact they are lesbian or gay. But
in the real world, these values are not universally shared. So whose morals
should teachers and governors be basing their framework on? Which values do
schools actively wish to promote?’ The problem is aggravated by the fact that
there are ‘many situations in life where what is “right” or “wrong” is not
universally agreed’.4 Clearly, the FPA did not agree with the set of values the
Conservative Government wanted to impose on school sex education. This exchange
shows that the FPA was unhappy with a moral framework for sex education that
encourages children ‘to appreciate the value of stable family life, marriage and
the responsibility of parenthood’. They did not support sex education that was
based on a single ‘prescriptive’ set of values.
As we saw in the previous chapter, the Labour Government’s new
guidance on sex education sets out to ‘help and support young people through
their physical, emotional and moral development’, and to help ‘pupils deal with
difficult moral and social questions [my italics]’.5 The draft guidance of the
Welsh Assembly makes it clear that the aim of sex education is to develop
attitudes, values and skills which influence the way children behave.6 So we see
that sex education, like Christianity, aims, through its moral teaching, to
influence the behaviour of children. In other words, the sex education that is
being promoted by the Labour Government, in partnership with the FPA, is, in
fact, an evangelical movement which aims to ‘prepare young people for an adult
life in which they can develop positive values and a moral framework that will
guide their decisions, judgements and behaviour [my italics]’.7 The fact that
sex education teaches a ‘moral framework’ and ‘positive values’ is emphasised.
Many people reading these words assume that the moral framework is based on
Christian moral standards. Most people are reassured by the fact that sex
education teaches ‘positive values’.
The draft document of the Welsh Assembly outlines the way in
which moral guidance should be taught. Under key stage 1, the moral aspect of
sex education must ensure that pupils ‘know what is fair and unfair and what
they believe to be right and wrong’. Note that children are taught not what is
right and wrong, but what they believe to be right and wrong. The implication is
that right and wrong are a matter of opinion, depending on what each person
believes, and not on any objective standard. This is the first step in
introducing young children to the concept of moral relativism. Children are also
taught ‘that people have different preferences, views and beliefs’. Here the
implication is that there is a range of views and beliefs to choose from, all of
equal value, and so each child should choose the views and beliefs that suits
them best.
Under key stage 2, children are taught to understand ‘that
people differ in what they believe is right and wrong’. In other words, right
and wrong is a matter of choice—all views must be respected, for everybody is
entitled to their own opinion, and it is inappropriate for a person to try to
force their view of right and wrong on to anyone else. We must all be tolerant
of other people’s values. By key stage 4, sex education enables children to
‘identify a set of values and principles by which to live’. So sex education is
quite upfront about the fact that it aims to influence the sexual behaviour of
children. Having explored the finer points of a range of moral options, children
are in a position to identify their own set of values on which to base their
sexual lives. And it doesn’t really matter what set of values they choose
(remember, there is no absolute right and wrong), so long as they feel
comfortable with their choice.
Values clarification
The technique described above for enabling children to choose a set of values on
which to base their sexual conduct is known as values clarification. In
Developing sex education in schools, Gill Mullinar explains that a vital
part of sex education ‘involves encouraging young people to explore their own
values and those of others. Values clarification requires participants to take
an individual stance on an issue, for example “sex before marriage is wrong”.
The stance can be compared to another person’s and then shared and discussed
with the whole group.’8 A technique for introducing values clarification into
the classroom is called the values continuum. The teacher places a card with
‘agree’ on one side of the room and another with ‘disagree’ on the other side.
The children are then presented with a moral statement, such as ‘sex before
marriage is wrong’, and asked to move to the position between ‘agree’ and
‘disagree’ which is nearest the opinion with which they are most comfortable.
Children then discuss the issue with someone with a similar view and then with
someone of the opposite opinion. They are then asked if they want to change
their position. ‘The aim of the exercise is not to change other people’s
attitudes, but to hear and understand them. Thus participants are required to
make a decision, justify it, and possibly change their view. A values continuum
is also useful for establishing that people are entitled to their own views.’9
Values clarification aims to make children aware of their own
feelings, their own ideas, their own beliefs, so that the choices and decisions
they make are conscious and deliberate – some would say authentic – based on
their own value system. In Why are you losing your children? Barbara
Morris explains that the fundamental assumption behind values clarification is
not a neutral point of view but rather a view known as moral relativism.
Everything the child has been taught about morality is dissected, shaken and
then clarified – sexual conduct, family, religious beliefs, feelings and
attitudes. Nothing is too personal or sacred to be taken apart and challenged.
‘The values you have passed on to your child – the values he comes to school
with, must be clarified. They are not acceptable “as is”, because you did the
unforgivable – you decided for your child, because of your God-given
responsibility and right – what values you want him to hold. Those imposed
values, which he did not choose freely, must be clarified. He must decide,
immature and unwise though he may be, whether or not he wishes to keep, modify
or discard what you have taught him. Values clarification involves exposing the
personal, private values of the child to the scrutiny of his peers in the
classroom.’ Morris argues that a child’s values are forced through the ‘meat
grinder’ of public exposure and group discussion. It’s up to the child to
decide, with the help of the pooled ignorance of his peers and the influence of
the teacher, whose own value system may not coincide with that of the parents.
She concludes that ‘the effect of values clarification is to drive a wedge
between parent and child, child and authority and between child and religious
beliefs. It is a powerful vehicle for chaos and alienation. Without
exaggeration, it sets up a battle between you and the school for the very soul
of your child.’10
Values clarification places before children impossible
dilemmas and forces them to make moral decisions about issues they do not yet
fully understand. Paul Vitz has pointed out the five areas of bias associated
with the technique. ‘First, its exercises embody the moral ideology of a small,
liberal segment of society… Second, its values are relative to individual
tastes. Third, possible solutions to the moral dilemmas posed to students are
limited to the most liberal opinions. Fourth, the exercises focus on the
individual in isolation from family and society. And fifth, morality is
construed simply as self-gratification. It is a simple-minded, intellectually
incompetent system.’11 Values clarification ‘aggressively promotes a particular
ethical view—moral relativism. It uses ambiguities to encourage agnosticism
about universal moral rules. By posing extremely difficult problems to children
untutored in ethical decision-making, values clarification destroys their
confidence in moral absolutes.’12
The moral framework that is being promoted in schools through
the technique of values clarification is moral relativism—a system that teaches
that as there are no moral absolutes everyone is free to do as they like, and no
one is to pass moral judgement on the behaviour of anyone else. The outcome of
relative morality is that when faced with the same moral issue, such as having
sex before marriage, one girl or boy may choose one thing and another girl or
boy may choose the opposite. And no one can say that one choice is right and the
other wrong—both choices are right for that individual at that time. The system
of moral relativism is, in reality, a system that legitimises immorality.
Self-esteem
Another technique used in sex education is the promotion of self-esteem as a
psychological tool to help children make positive sexual choices. Guidance from
the Department for Education emphasises the importance of building self-esteem
in children and young people in both primary and secondary schools.13 Sex
education ‘enables young people to mature, to build up their confidence and
self-esteem and understand the reasons for delaying sexual activity’.14 The
Teenage Parenthood Working Group claims that the reason young people make
unhealthy sexual choices is because they have low self-esteem. ‘Young people
with positive self-esteem are much less likely to become teenage parents.
Efforts to reduce teenage parenthood rates in both the short and long term must
focus on improving self-esteem among young people.’15 So sex education
encourages young people to develop positive self-esteem as the basis for making
healthy choices.
Most sex education manuals contain activities to help children
develop positive self-esteem. For example, the sex manual for primary schools,
Knowing me, knowing you, teaches that promoting positive self-esteem is
an important aspect of sex education. The teacher is ‘to offer a climate which
develops self-esteem. If we feel good about ourselves, we are more likely to
consider what we do and how we do it.’16 The authors believe that ‘sex education
is about helping children to make responsible decisions about the relationships
that they form with others. When considering ourselves in relation to others,
the area of self-esteem also comes into play. Helping children to develop a
positive sense of self will involve discussion about choice-making,
assertiveness, self-expression and, in turn, respect for others.’17 Sex
education that promotes self-esteem is supposed to challenge the values,
attitudes and taboos that have been formed by the culture with which we
identify.18
The Northern Ireland sex education programme, Love for Life,
is a classic example of a programme based on an appeal to self-esteem. It
invites young people to make ‘informed and mature sexual health choices’ on the
basis of information and positive self-esteem.19 And ‘self-esteem is when you
feel good about yourself, and you feel confident that there are things you can
do and do well. If you feel good about yourself, you have positive or high
self-esteem. But if you feel bad about yourself, you have negative or low
self-esteem… Truly successful people are those with higher positive
self-esteem.’20 While Love for Life claims that its purpose is to encourage
young people to delay sexual intercourse, it also believes that giving young
people information about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases helps
them to make an informed choice about whether or not to have sex.
The problem with the appeal to self-esteem as a guide to
decision-making is that it ignores the moral dimension of life. While values
clarification undermines traditional morality, the appeal to self-esteem simply
ignores morality; those with positive self-esteem are empowered to make
‘healthy’ sexual choices, while those with poor self-esteem are likely to make
‘unhealthy’ choices. At the heart of the self-esteem approach is the idea that
there are no right or wrong decisions, only ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ choices.
So promiscuity is not wrong, but may be an ‘unhealthy’ choice. Some people feel
that delaying sexual activity is a ‘healthy’ choice, while others may feel that
for the young couple who truly love each other, and know how to use
contraception, sexual intercourse can be an equally ‘healthy’ choice. After all,
for those young people who practise ‘safe sex’ by using contraception, there is
little threat to health. So the appeal to self-esteem persuades young people
that their sexual choices should be made on the basis of how they feel about
themselves and not on any objective moral standard. Love for Life
reassures young people of ‘the value and worth of each person’ and informs them
that they are ‘special no matter what choices they make in any area of their
lives’.21
In her study of the demoralisation of Britain, social
historian Gertrude Himmelfarb draws a distinction between the current obsession
with ‘self-esteem’ and the Victorian belief in ‘self-help’. She makes the point
that whereas self-help depends upon the individual’s actions and achievements,
self-esteem is presumed to adhere to the individual regardless of how he behaves
or what he accomplishes. ‘The current notions of self-fulfillment,
self-expression, and self-realization derive from a self that does not have to
prove itself by reference to any values, purposes, or persons outside
itself—that simply is, and by reason of that alone deserves to be fulfilled and
realized. This is truly a self divorced from others, narcissistic and
solipsistic. It is this self that is extolled in the movement against “codependency”,
which aspires to free the self from any dependency upon others and, even more,
from any responsibility to others.’22 In other words, self-esteem is all about
feeling good regardless of how I behave, and getting what I want, with no moral
compass.
The self-esteem movement has its roots in the teachings of the
secular psychologist Abraham Maslow. In his book Towards a Psychology of
Being (1968), Maslow describes a positive, self-actualising force within
each person that is struggling to assert itself. He believed that since our
‘inner nature is good or neutral rather than bad, it is best to bring it out and
encourage it rather than to suppress it. If it is permitted to guide our life,
we grow healthy, fruitful, and happy’.23 Maslow described a hierarchy of needs
ranging from the lower, biological needs to the higher social needs. We need to
become ‘self-actualised’ in order to experience wholeness, perfection, justice,
richness, simplicity, beauty, goodness, uniqueness, playfulness, truth and
self-sufficiency. In Unmasking the New Age, Douglas Groothuis points out that
although Maslow was an atheist, he invested humanity with the attributes of
deity. ‘Maslow’s pathbreaking efforts cleared the way for an exodus from the old
psychological view of humanity toward a new human that is essentially good and
has within himself unlimited potential for growth. A whole host of thinkers –
Erich Fromm, Rollo May, Carl Rogers and others – sound this call. In humanistic
psychology the self is seen as the radiant heart of health, and psychotherapy
must strive to get the person in touch with that source of goodness… This is the
message at the core of New Age teaching.’24
There is now a massive self-esteem industry which uses a whole
range of techniques for helping people develop positive self-esteem, including
psycho-therapy, cognitive therapy, hypnosis, reiki and various other New Age
techniques. The difficulty with the self-esteem movement from a Christian point
of view is the focus on self. The idea that we should look within ourselves for
empowerment to make positive choices is to deny the doctrine of original sin, to
deny the truth that the human heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately sick (Jeremiah 17:9). While the Bible teaches that a moral decision
is based on the objective truth of God’s law, self-esteem teaches that a
‘positive’ choice is generated by subjective emotions—that which makes us feel
good becomes a ‘positive’ choice. However, the self-esteem path is fraught with
danger, for ‘there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads
to death’ (Proverbs: 14:12).
Sex education literature
Over the last three decades the FPA, the Health Education Authority (HEA) and
Brook have produced an array of sex education literature. Health authorities
have been one of the main vehicles for distributing this literature, some of
which is used in sex education lessons in school. I have analysed a sample of
booklets and pamphlets to illustrate the moral philosophy promoted by sex
education.
The morality of desire – only have sex because you want
to
The pamphlet Sexual health matters for young women (HEA) explains that
‘whether or not you have sex can be a difficult decision to make. But in the end
it’s what’s right for you, and only you can answer that. If you’ve decided
you’re not ready for sex, then fine. Remember, it’s your body, your choice and
your right to say no. Only have sex because you want to.’25 The young woman is
offered a choice of whether or not to have sex, and her decision depends on what
she wants, on her sexual desires, on how she feels at that moment in
time, and not on any objective standard of right and wrong. Notice that if she
does not want to have sex, then fine, it is her right to say no. The
corollary is that if she does want to have sex, then fine, it is her
right to say yes. The inference is that whatever she chooses is right for her.
So the message is that, when it comes to sexual behaviour, young people should
do what they want. A guide for gay and bisexual men puts it this way—‘doing only
what you want to do, what you enjoy and feel safe with’.26 According to the sex
educators, the decision of young people to have sex is their own business and
nobody should judge them—hence the idea of non-judgemental sex education. It is
not difficult to see that this teaching leads to sexual anarchy, as each young
person is encouraged to believe that they are free to do whatever they want to,
whatever they feel to be right in their own eyes.
Well over one million copies of the pamphlet HIV – Facts
for Life (1993), published by AIDS Care Education and Training (ACET), have
been distributed. It tells the story of a young man, Steve, who is being
pressurised by his friends, agonising over the question of whether he should
have sex or not. His friends ask him, ‘When did you first do it?’ When he
confesses that he has never done it, they laugh at him: ‘Who are you saving
yourself for, Steve?’ and ‘maybe he’s scared of getting pregnant!’ Steve reasons
to himself that it’s not the idea of sex that he finds embarrassing, and
convinces himself that the real question is ‘what I really want. It’s your
choice – no one else’s.’ When his friends taunt him, ‘Come on Steve, admit it,
you’re just being a wimp!’ Steve responds that ‘at least I don’t just go along
with the crowd. At least I make my own decisions.’27 The message is perfectly
clear. A young man’s decision to have sex depends on what he wants. There
is no suggestion of right or wrong, simply what a young man wants. Here we have
a classic example of morality based on desire, a morality which encourages young
people to satisfy their sexual desires, if that’s what they really want.
Teenage Living & Loving by James
Hemming, published by the British Medical Association, explains that ‘in matters
of sex and love it is very important to be as frank as possible with one another
and to act according to how you really feel and really want… Not so very
long ago pre-marital relationships were condemned as utterly wrong. But ideas
have changed a great deal, and many people today accept sexual relationships
before marriage, provided that they are honest and caring. If a relationship is
honest and caring, and the partners know each other well and trust each other,
then whether or not they decide to have sexual relationships, when they feel
ready for them, is their own decision.’28 The booklet, having dismissed the idea
that promiscuous sex is wrong, advises teenagers that their decision to have sex
is based on what they want, guided by how they feel [my italics].
The booklet Private & Confidential (1994), published
jointly by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of GPs, the FPA
and Brook, has the aim of advising young girls under the age of 16 that they can
get contraceptives from their GP without their parents knowing about it—‘even if
you are under 16, doctors still have to keep anything you tell them private,
just as they would for an adult. So whether you ask for advice about a cold or
something as personal as contraception or a sexual problem, your doctor will not
tell anyone else what has been discussed.’ Young girls are advised that ‘it
should be your choice to have sex. Think hard about the decision, don’t jump
into it before you’re ready and never feel you have to do it because someone is
pressuring you. It’s really important to get contraception sorted out before you
start having sex – or as early as possible in your relationship. Remember, you
can get confidential help from a doctor even if you’re under 16 so there’s no
need to take any risks.’29 Notice the casual, amoral approach to promiscuous
sex—it’s just something that young girls do, so what’s the big deal? A teenage
girl is advised ‘it should be your choice to have sex’, and if she decides she
wants to have sex, her doctor will help her with contraceptives. So girls of 13,
14 and 15 are advised that they can choose to have sex if they want it. Notice
the emphasis that teenagers should make up their own mind, free no doubt from
the influence of their parents and the teaching of the Church, about their
sexual conduct. One can only wonder how parents feel about this kind of advice
being given to their daughters. Note too the false reassurance that ‘there’s no
need to take any risks’—as if contraceptives removed all the risks associated
with promiscuous sex.
Sexual abstinence
A consistent message of sex education ideology is that those who don’t want to
have sex should be encouraged to abstain until they feel they are ready. The
booklet One Love (HEA) gives advice to young people who fall in love. It
advises those who are ‘tempted to go all the way’ to talk about it with their
partner. ‘If you can talk to your partner about sex, then you’ll probably enjoy
it more than if you sleep with someone you don’t really know. Your first time
should be something to remember with pleasure – not embarrassment!’ But ‘if
you’re not ready it’s your right to say no if you don’t want to go all the
way’.30 The central message is that if a young girl is with someone she really
likes then it is acceptable to have sexual intercourse if she feels that she
wants to, but if she feels she does not want to go all the way, then it is her
right to say no. So we see that the HEA advises those who are not ready that it
is their right to delay the onset of sexual intercourse.
In the booklet 4 Boys: a below-the-belt guide to the male
body the FPA addresses the question of the right time to have sex. It points
out that ‘the average when both men and women first have sex is now 17. Many
wait until they are older. If you have any doubts, or think that you’ll regret
it, then wait.’ But if a couple ‘think the time’s right… try to make you and
your partner’s first sexual experience as good as possible’.31 The message for
those who are not ready for sex is to wait for the right time. A pamphlet for
young men teaches that peer pressure can push people ‘into having sex for all
the wrong reasons. And if your partner isn’t ready for sex, imagine how they
feel if you keep pressuring them about it. So be fair to yourself and to your
partner – only have sex if you both want to.’32 The message is clear—if one
partner does not want sex, then abstain from sexual intercourse until both
partners want it.
The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United
States (SIECUS), the main organisation involved in sex education in the USA, is
a keen advocate of abstinence. ‘Some people feel sexual desire but choose not to
be sexual with anyone else. That’s just fine. The choice not to be sexual with
anyone else is called sexual abstinence. It is a good choice and
something you may choose at different times throughout your whole life. This can
happen whenever you don’t feel ready to be sexual with someone else, even when
you have a partner you have been sexual with in the past. Abstinence is one
possible choice… Abstinence from sexual relations has benefits for teenagers. It
is the best way to prevent pregnancy and to prevent becoming infected with HIV
and other STDs… Remember, for many young persons the choice to be abstinent is
the best choice.’33
Advising young people to delay the onset of sexual
intercourse, that is, to abstain until they feel ready to have sex, is central
to sex education ideology. Most abstinence programmes promote self-esteem as the
basis for making ‘positive’ or ‘healthy’ decisions. Virtually all sex education
programmes advise those who feel they are not yet ready to say: ‘No, I don’t
want to have sex with you now.’ The essential characteristic of ‘abstinence’
education is that it is pro-choice, offering young people the choice between
delaying sexual activity and ‘safer sex’. Young people are presented with two
options and invited to choose the one that makes them feel most comfortable, and
whatever choice they make is right for them. Some people are misled into
believing that this message, which encourages young people to delay the onset of
sexual intercourse until they are ready, is consistent with biblical morality.
But this is not the case. Delaying the onset of sexual intercourse, or
abstinence, or learning to wait until the right moment, is a pragmatic decision
based on the feelings and desires of the young people involved, and has nothing
to do with what is right or wrong. Chastity, on the other hand, is a moral
decision to remain chaste until marriage. There is a world of difference between
these two positions. One is based on the morality of desire, the other on the
morality of the Bible.
Moral philosophy of postmodernism
The above examples suggest a link between the message of sex education and the
moral philosophy of postmodernism. In his Guide to Contemporary Culture,
Gene Veith provides a useful summary of postmodernist thought. He explains that
for postmodernists morality, like religion, is a matter of desire. ‘What I want
and what I choose is not only true (for me) but right (for me). That different
people want and choose different things means that truth and morality are
relative, but “I have a right” to my desires. Conversely, “no one has the right”
to criticise my desires and my choices. Although postmodernists tend to reject
traditional morality, they can still be very moralistic. They will defend their
“rights” to do what they want with puritanical zeal. Furthermore, they seem to
feel they have a right not to be criticized for what they are doing. They want
not only licence but also approval. Thus tolerance becomes the cardinal virtue…
postmodernist sins are “being judge-mental”, “being narrow-minded”, “thinking
that you have the only truth”, and “trying to enforce your values on anyone
else”. Those who question the post-modernist dogma that “there are no absolutes”
are excluded from the canons of tolerance. The only wrong idea is to believe in
truth; the only sin is to believe in sin. The morality of desire has wreaked
havoc with sexuality.’34
Veith shows that in postmodern thinking meaning is not
discovered in the objective world; rather, meaning is a purely human phenomenon.
Because there is no ready-made meaning to life, individuals can create meaning
for themselves. ‘Since everyone creates his or her own meaning, every meaning is
equally valid. Religion becomes a purely private affair, which cannot be imposed
on anyone else. The content of one’s meaning makes no difference, only the
personal commitment… Moral values, like other kinds or meaning, are created by
the self. The best example of an existential ethic can be found in some of those
who advocate abortion but call themselves “pro-choice”. To them it makes no
difference what the woman decides, only that she makes an authentic choice to
have or not to have a baby. Whatever she chooses is right—for her.’35
The guidance provided by sex education is based on the
morality of desire. The guiding principle is what a child wants, and the child
is taught that there is no clear distinction between right and wrong in matters
of sexual conduct. The morality promoted by sex education is relative, a
question of opinion, based on feelings of self-esteem—a child is taught that he
is free to develop his own moral framework, to decide for himself what is right.
It is extraordinary that State sex education in England, a
country which for the last thousand years has accepted the objective standard of
biblical morality, should now encourage children to develop their own set of
values. And when it comes to sexual conduct, it makes no difference what a young
person chooses, only that he or she makes a ‘positive’ choice—and should their
‘positive’ choice lead to an unwanted pregnancy, that they make an ‘informed’
choice on whether or not to have an abortion. Whatever they choose is right for
them, and no one has the right to criticise their choice. And if they choose to
have sex, the important thing is for them to act ‘responsibly’ by using a
condom.
Promiscuous sex
Consistent with its ideology that fails to distinguish between right and wrong,
sex education teaches young people that they are free to choose any form of
sexual lifestyle they desire, including promiscuous sex and homosexual sex.
Having made it clear that young people are free to have sex when they want to,
sex education explains the reasons why promiscuous sex might be a desirable
choice.
The pamphlet Lovelife (HEA) records the thoughts of a
teenage virgin: ‘Seventeen and the only virgin in my class – I thought I was the
last person in the world who’d never had it. Everybody’s doing it – maybe I
should too.’36 Here sex education is using the classic propaganda technique of
the bandwagon effect. Everybody’s doing ‘it’, so you should be doing ‘it’ too.
Teenagers are actually being persuaded to follow the crowd and have sex. The
pamphlet advises the young virgin that ‘being prepared doesn’t mean taking the
fun out of sex. And it doesn’t mean you are planning to sleep around. It just
makes sense.’ And she can ‘be prepared’ by buying condoms ‘from a machine or in
a supermarket where you can get them off the shelf with other goods. Once you’ve
bought them a few times you’ll find it much easier.’ The pamphlet goes on,
‘You’ve bought the condoms – now how do you suggest using one? Talking about
safer sex doesn’t have to be difficult. Once you mention it you might find your
partner is just as keen to talk about it as you are.’37 Teenagers are advised
that ‘if you’re likely to be in a situation where you may have sex – maybe after
parties, pubs, clubs, raves – make sure you’ve got condoms with you.’38 It’s
better to ‘make sure you’re carrying condoms’39 than risk unsafe sex. The reason
teenagers need to carry condoms is because they never know when they may have an
opportunity for casual sex. In the amoral world of sex education it is unlikely
that a teenager would refuse such an opportunity, so all must ‘be prepared’ for
sex. This guidance gives a green light to promiscuous sex, for it suggests to
impressionable teenagers that casual sex is acceptable provided they use a
condom. The fact that most do not want to be promiscuous is ignored—the message
is that all should ‘be prepared’ for sex.
The pamphlet Play safe on holiday (Brook) relates in
cartoon strip the sexual adventures of two young women going on holiday. ‘We’d
saved all year for this holiday and nothing was going to stop us having a good
time! Mandy had fallen straight into the arms of this guy (Jim) who’d sat next
to us in the plane coming over.’ After the second girl falls for Dan, one of the
guys on the next balcony, the two young women get together to discuss their
sexual adventures. ‘I really fancy him, Mandy, but how on earth can I ask him to
use a condom?’ Mandy replies, with a happy smile, ‘I’ve got all the colours of
the rainbow with me – so I just asked Jim which he’d fancied!’40 But her friend
is despondent because Dan does not want to use a condom. ‘It’s no good – he
thinks I think he’s got something nasty! What shall I do?’ Mandy advises her
desperate friend, ‘You could use a female condom yourself. Or you could play
safe. Swimming naked together and massaging each other all over with suntan oil
are about as sexy as you can get.’ Notice the matter-of-fact way in which the
pamphlet tells the reader that Mandy has already ‘had sex’ with Jim. The
implication is that it is quite natural for a young woman to have casual sex
with a man that she has just met, and what’s more, it is sensible for a young
woman who is going on holiday to be armed with a range of condoms. And Mandy’s
happiness has come about because she was prepared for sex. This pamphlet
suggests to young women that casual sex is an exciting adventure. It encourages
lustful thoughts, promoting the idea of casual sex as the norm. Teenagers
reading it are led to believe that it is quite acceptable, even expected, for
young women on holiday to have a good time by indulging in sex with the first
man who is willing, provided they ‘play it safe’ by using condoms.
The booklet, Learning to Live with Sex (1972), produced
by the FPA, describes chastity as ‘not having sexual intercourse until you are
married, and then only with that person… People’s needs are different, and
everyone has to make up his or her own mind about the value of chastity.’41 The
booklet explains that girls ‘may be worried about having sex if they are not
married… if you belong to a church and have definite religious beliefs there is
no doubt that it will upset you a great deal if you do things which are against
your conscience. Many people don’t go along with those beliefs any more, but if
your parents still believe them and think you should too, you may have a rather
difficult time trying to sort out what is the right thing for you to do. If
possible try and talk these over with someone outside your family. If you don’t
know anyone you can trust, try one of the organisations listed at the back.’42
And the listed organisations include abortion, contraception and homosexual
counselling agencies, the FPA and Brook.43
Learning to Live with Sex
suggests that many young people no longer accept the traditional moral view held
by the church and their parents that ‘having sex if they are not married’ is
wrong. So instead of following the traditional view, indeed their own parents’
view, teenagers are encouraged to make up their own mind about chastity—that is,
they are being guided to do what they feel to be right in their own eyes. The
booklet presents premarital sex as a morally neutral issue, simply a matter of
choice, with teenagers free to decide for themselves how they should behave.
Moreover, it invites children to reject chastity by suggesting that sexual
intercourse among boys and girls is the norm: ‘But it is important when a couple
make love for the first time that the boy makes sure that the girl is relaxed
and her vulva moist before he gently inserts his penis into her vagina [my
italics].’44 And if teenagers are confused about rejecting traditional morality
they can phone the FPA for support.
There can be no doubt that teenagers reading the above
pamphlets are being encouraged to believe that there is no moral objection to
promiscuous sex—there is not even the slightest hint that promiscuity is wrong,
or that it can have the most dire moral, emotional and physical consequences.
Teenagers are being led to believe that, provided they use condoms, they can
have sex whenever they like.
Homosexuality
Sex education literature also condones, and even encourages, homosexual
relations. One of the books recommended by the FPA as being particularly helpful
is Girls and Sex, written by Wardell Pomeroy, co-author of the Kinsey
Reports on human sexual behaviour. This book provides young girls with the
following advice: ‘One thing that confuses a great many people is thinking of
homosexuality as something separate and distinct from heterosexuality, which
means sexual relations or attraction between members of the opposite sex.
Because a girl is sexually aroused by or has relations with another girl doesn’t
mean she cannot have relations with boys, just as a girl who likes ice cream may
also like pie.’45 The book explains to girls that ‘few people are able to accept
the truth about themselves, which is that everyone is potentially capable of
doing every act imaginable, including having homosexual relations, given the
proper circumstances, conditioning and back-ground. Everyone has latent
homosexual tendencies in one degree or another…’46 Here Pomeroy is teaching that
bisexuality is the norm, and that it is perfectly normal for a girl to be
sexually attracted to, and have sex with, both girls and boys. In his mind,
having sex has as much moral content as eating ice cream or pie.
According to Learning to Live with Sex, ‘Many people in
their teens find that they like members of their own sex much better than the
other.’ And ‘because a man or woman is a homosexual does not mean he or she is
perverted or carries out strange practices. For homosexuals, lovemaking is as
natural as it is for anyone else.’47 The pamphlet Lovelife informs young
people that ‘sexuality can be confusing at the best of times and if you’re not
sure which sex you’re attracted to, you’re not alone. Discovering your sexuality
may take time, and you’re the only one who can decide where your true feelings
lie.’ And if a teenager wants advice then they can phone the London Lesbian and
Gay Switchboard for a private chat.48 Sex education makes no moral distinction
between heterosexual and homosexual sex—both are equally acceptable, it’s simply
a matter of choice.
The FPA booklet 4 Boys, partly funded by the Department
of Health, gives young men the following advice. ‘Getting an erection when you
are around other boys doesn’t mean that you are gay. But you may be sexually
interested in other men – or even men AND women. It’s not a problem; your body
is yours to share with whomever you choose.’49 The booklet, Is everybody
doing it? (FPA) gives this advice: ‘Sexuality is not the same for everyone.
Some people are attracted to people of the opposite sex, some to the same sex
and some to both. Most people will grow up to be heterosexual (fancy someone of
the opposite sex) but this doesn’t mean that they are only attracted to the
opposite sex all their lives.’50 The clear implication of this advice is that
both homosexuality and bisexuality are natural and should not be regarded as a
problem. It is up to young people to choose with whom they want to share their
body. And if they want to have sex with members of both sexes, then that is
their choice, and nobody has the right to judge them. As we shall see in chapter
6, this advice is consistent with the ideology propagated by Alfred Kinsey,
namely, that human sexuality is a continuum between heterosexuality and
homo-sexuality with bisexuality being the norm.
The above examples make it clear that sex education regards
all types of sexual orientation – bisexuality, heterosexuality and homosexuality
– as moral equivalents; there is no moral distinction between having sex with
members of the opposite sex, members of the same sex, or members of both sexes.
Sex education simply helps teenagers to find their preferred sexual orientation.
‘Safer sex’ message
After encouraging young people to think and act sexually, sex education informs
them that ‘having sex’ can have a few unfortunate side effects, such as sexually
transmitted diseases and an unwanted pregnancy. The good news is that condoms
can protect against these nasty side effects. The booklet Is everybody doing
it? (FPA) recites the ‘safer sex’ mantra: ‘Condoms protect against both
pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Condoms can keep both you and
your partner safe and allow you to relax and enjoy sex.’51 According to
Lovelife ‘only condoms provide an “all-in-one” protection against pregnancy
and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV’.52 So all a teenager has to
do is buy condoms or get them free from a family planning clinic and he is ready
and prepared for his ‘safer sex’ adventures.
Say yes? Say no? Say maybe?
(Brook) provides teenagers with advice on using condoms. It explains that
although everyone feels a bit silly using a condom for the first time, there are
three ways to get around this. ‘First, have a giggle-—who says lovemaking has to
be deadly serious? As long as you’re not laughing at him but at the condom,
nobody gets hurt. Buy one of the coloured condoms and make like it’s a party.
Second, get over your giggles by using condoms at other times and getting used
to them. Blow them up at parties—see who can burst theirs first or who gets them
biggest. Third, practice makes perfect. Girls can practise opening a packet and
putting them on their partner (use a banana as a model), and boys can practise
putting them on and wanking.’53 And to encourage girls to take the initiative in
buying condoms, they are informed that ‘one condom in three is now bought by
women, so girls needn’t feel shy or odd buying them. Make it an initiative test
– the first one of you to pluck up courage has to be given tickets for a gig!’54
Although the thought of teenage children playing party games with condoms is
shocking to most parents, this is what children are being taught in the name of
sex education.
The cartoon strip The cool lovers guide to slick condom use
(Brook) shows Jon, a teenage boy, daydreaming about having sex with his
girlfriend. When he realises that his girlfriend will expect him to practise
‘safe sex’, he searches for the condom attached to a leaflet he was given at the
club. Jon mutters to himself, ‘Now where’s that “I’m a cool lover always carry a
condom” condom gone?’ Having found the mislaid condom the teenager comments,
‘Let’s have a practice run – I’d look a prat reading instructions in front of
her.’ The next day he tells his girlfriend, ‘I got some condoms. I wanted
everything to be OK.’ His girlfriend responds, ‘I’ve got some too when I went to
the clinic.’ She tells Jon that she has also practised using them on a roll-on
deodorant bottle, an experience she found ‘ever so sexy’.55 And so the two
sexually aroused children are ‘prepared’ for sex. And it’s all so easy, so sexy,
so exciting, so tragic.
Your Passport to Sexual Health, a
booklet produced by Marie Stopes International, tells young people that ‘a
foreign holiday still holds promise of sun, sea and sex. But all too easily the
romance can go sour, with irritating women’s health problems and forgotten or
lost contraceptives. Worse still, many women bring unwanted souvenirs home from
their vacations – sexually transmitted disease and unplanned pregnancies.’56 The
booklet recommends that young people should have their contraceptives sorted out
two or three months before they go on holiday, and gives some hints for a good
time. ‘The key to good holiday sexual health is condoms.’ And ‘condoms don’t
have to be a bore. They come in all colours, textures and flavours. They don’t
even have to smell rubbery – some condoms are made of plastic, making them
thinner and stronger and odourless. Ask your GP or family planning clinic for
free supplies of condoms. Then PACK THEM!!’57 The advice continues, ‘protection
against pregnancy must be your first line of defence, but mistakes can happen.
Condoms can come off or split, or you might just get carried away… But help is
at hand. Emergency contraception can be used after unprotected sex.’ And so
Marie Stopes advises a young woman that to enjoy her holiday she needs to be
well supplied with condoms, and even emergency contraception, in case her
condoms fail.
According to Lovelife, ‘the best way to make sure that
you don’t have unprotected sex is to plan ahead’ by making sure you’ve got
condoms with you. ‘It is better to be prepared than risk unsafe sex. After all,
you can easily hide condoms in your pocket or purse.’ And if you’re in a
situation where you may have sex, make sure you take your condoms. And if you’re
going abroad remember to buy your condoms before you go.58 The implicit message
of these pamphlets is that casual sex is the norm; it’s quite usual to have sex
after parties, after going to the pub or when you go on holiday. The ‘safer sex’
message, however, seldom mentions the real danger of contraceptive failure. The
sex educator does not emphasise the fact that condom failure rates of 14 per
cent are reported among single young women. In other words, with typical use 14
out of 100 young women will become pregnant over the course of a year. Failure
rates among deprived young women are even higher—almost one-quarter, that is, 23
out of 100, can expect to become pregnant during the first year of using
condoms.59 This is why so many young women who rely on ‘safer sex’ end up
pregnant.
Sexually transmitted disease (STD)
After all the talk about ‘safer sex’ most teenagers could be forgiven for
believing that, provided they use condoms, they are safe from sexually
transmitted diseases. Alas, this is not the case. As the pamphlet Lovelife
explains, ‘the most important thing to realise about sexually transmitted
infections is that anybody who is having sex can get them – young or old, male
or female, straight, gay or lesbian’.60 The implication is that ‘unprotected’
sex causes sexually transmitted diseases. So ‘anybody who is having sex’ can get
infections such as gonorrhoea, chlamydia, herpes, genital warts and HIV. Notice
that in categorising ‘anybody who is having sex’ the sex educator does not
include the largest group, married couples. This remarkable omission shows how
sex education propaganda presents a view of the world in which marriage is
non-existent. It is only in this distorted view that ‘anybody who is having sex’
is at risk. In the real world, those who are faithful to their marriage partner
are at no risk—they don’t need to practise ‘safer sex’ to avoid sexually
transmitted diseases. So the propagandist’s claim, that ‘anybody who is having
sex’ can get a sexually transmitted disease, is misleading.
To reinforce the need for ‘safer sex’ young people are
informed that ‘sexual infections are very common. Used properly, condoms can
help protect against them.’61 But the statement that sexually transmitted
diseases are ‘very common’ is also misleading, for they are rare among married
couples, who make up the majority of sexually active people in society. The
truth that sex education is hiding is that sexually transmitted diseases are
common among those who practise casual sex. After three decades of sex education
propaganda and national ‘safer sex’ campaigns there is an epidemic of sexually
transmitted diseases among the young people who have been taught that they can
‘protect’ themselves by using condoms. In the last five years the incidence of
genital chlamydial infection in England and Wales has risen by 76 per cent,
gonorrhoea by 55 per cent, syphilis by 54 per cent and genital warts by 20 per
cent, and the greatest increase has occurred among teenagers,62 the age group
targeted by sex education. The truth that young people are not taught is that
sexually transmitted diseases are associated with sexual immorality—that is,
promiscuous sex, multiple partners and homosexual sex.
According to Lovelife: ‘The good news is that most
sexually transmitted infections can be quickly and easily treated if they’re
discovered early on. But some can cause serious long-term problems, such as
infertility in women, if they are not treated.’63 Notice the reassuring
statement that sexually transmitted infections can be treated quickly and
easily, implying that they are trivial infections, nothing more than a minor
inconvenience. All that young people need to do is go to a sexual health clinic
for treatment. And young people are reassured that ‘everything is completely
confidential. Nobody will be told of your visit unless you say they can be
told.’64 Yet the truth is that all sexually transmitted diseases are serious,
many are difficult to treat, and long-term complications in women include
chronic pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility. There is no more
distressing situation for a young girl than to be infected with gonorrhoea,
genital herpes or pubic lice; she feels dirty, ashamed and betrayed.
We have seen that the Government’s sex education programme
aims to help schoolchildren develop a moral framework to guide their sexual
behaviour. The moral guidance provided by sex education uses the dubious
techniques of values clarification and self-esteem. Children are coaxed into
rejecting absolute moral standards of right and wrong, which are portrayed as
old-fashioned and no longer relevant in a modern world. When it comes to sexual
conduct, children are taught that the decision whether to have sex or not is
their choice, and theirs alone, and whatever choice they make is right for them.
If they want to have sex, then provided they use a condom, that is a positive
choice for them.
Sex education literature never teaches schoolchildren that any
sexual conduct is wrong. To do so would be judgemental, or worse, moralising.
The effect is to demoralise sexual behaviour in the eyes of children. Sex
education literature promotes the idea that the purpose of sex is pleasure.
Children and young people are left with the impression that sex is a game,
something they do for fun: ‘having sex’ or ‘having it off’ has little more
significance than going to the movies. Sex education seldom, if ever, mentions
marriage and certainly does not teach that sexual activity should be confined to
the marriage union.
We must not be deceived by the so-called ‘positive’ values
that sex education claims to promote. According to the Pagan Federation one of
the essential principles of paganism is the promotion of a positive morality, in
which the individual is responsible for the discovery and development of their
true nature. The pagan creed is often expressed as, ‘do what you will, as long
as it harms none’ and it avoids a list of thou-shalt-nots,65 a pejorative phrase
for God’s moral law. It does not take much insight to see that the ideology of
sex education, which claims to teach children positive values, which ridicules
the laws of God as judgemental thou-shalt-nots, and which encourages children to
do as they want, is perfectly consistent with the pagan ethic.
In a debate in the House of Lords Baroness Gaitskell claimed
that an important function of sex education is to reduce ‘the ignorance and
guilt which have been such a legacy from Victorian years’.66 She was drawing
attention to a conflict between Victorian sexual mores and the aims of the sex
education movement. And she is absolutely right, for there is a vast difference
between Victorian attitudes to sexual behaviour and what is being taught by
modern day sex education. Many parents will be astounded at the large gulf
between their own views of sexual morality and what their children are being
taught. There is no denying that what is now being taught in the name of sex
education represents a paradigm shift from the traditional moral views held in
this country until only a few decades ago. There is no denying that the message
propagated by sex education is light years from the moral standards of Victorian
England, a largely Christian society which laid great emphasis on the virtues of
modesty, chastity and fidelity.
How is it that we have so easily deserted the moral
foundations that built Great Britain into a great Christian nation? How is it
that we have moved so quickly from believing that sexual relationships should be
confined to the marriage union? To understand the ‘new morality’ of sex
education we need to see it within the historical context of Victorian England.
We need to contrast the ‘new’ positive morality that is being taught by sex
education with the traditional morality that it is so rapidly replacing. Only
then will we be able to understand the extent of the moral devastation that is
being visited on our children.
To top of page
Endnotes
1 Making sex education easier, A guide to sex education
resources, Brook publications, p4
2 Guide to Secondary School Sex Education Resources, West Sussex Health
Authority
3 Department for Education, Circular 5/94, Education Act 1993: Sex education in
schools, 1994
4 Gill Mullinar, Developing sex education in schools: a practical guide, Family
Planning Association, 1994, pp38-39
5 Sex and Relationship Education Guidance, Department for Education and
Employment, July 2000, p3
6 Draft Sex and Relationship Education Guidance, Welsh Assembly, January 2000, p
2
7 Ibid. Sex and Relationship Education Guidance, DfEE, p20
8 Gill Mullinar, Developing sex education in schools: a practical guide, Family
Planning Association, 1994, p71
9 Ibid. p72
10 Barbara M Morris, ‘Why are you losing your children?’ cited from Schools in
Crisis: Training for Success or Failure, Carl Sommer, Cahill Publishing Company,
p210
11 Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism, Baker Books, Grand Rapids,
1998, pp77-78
12 Ibid. p8
13 Ibid. Sex and Relationship Education Guidance, DfEE, p9, p10
14 Ibid. p4
15 Myths & Reality: Teenage Pregnancy and Parenthood, Report of the Teenage
Parenthood Working Group.
16 Pete Sanders and Liz Swinden, Knowing me, knowing you, LDA, 1990, p21
17 Ibid. p3
18 Ibid. p3
19 Cited from Love for Life website, www.loveforlife.org.uk
20 Cited from Who’s choosing, www.careincrisis.org.uk
21 Cited from Love for Life website, www.loveforlife.org.uk
22 Gertrude Himmelfarb, The De-moralization of Society, The Institute of
Economic Affairs, 1995, p256
23 Abraham Maslow, Towards a Psychology of Being, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, p5
24 Douglas Groothuis, Unmasking the New Age, Intervarsity Press, 1986, p78
25 Sexual matters for young women, Health Education Authority, inside front
cover
26 Safer sex, Terrence Higgins Trust, 1999
27 HIV – Facts for Life, ACET, 1993
28 James Hemming, Teenage Living & Loving, British Medical Association. pp24, 28
29 Private & Confidential - talking to doctors, The British Medical Association,
General Medical Services Committee, Royal College of General Practitioners,
Brook Advisory Centres and the Family Planning Association, 1994.
30 One Love, Health Education Authority and BBC Radio 1
31 4 Boys: a below-the-belt guide to the male body, Family Planning Association,
2000, p13
32 Sexual matters for young men, Health Education Authority, inside front cover
33 SIECUS website, For teens, Abstinence – what’s right for me?
34 Gene Veith, Guide to Contemporary Culture, Crossway Books, Leicester, 1994,
pp195-96
35 Ibid. pp37-38
36 Lovelife - Sexual health for young people, Health Education Authority, 1999,
p2
37 Ibid. p6
38 Ibid. p8
39 Sexual health matters for young men, Health Education Authority, p3
40 Play safe on holiday, leaflet, Brook publications
41 Learning to Live with Sex, Family Planning Association, 1972, p16
42 Ibid. p25
43 Ibid. p59
44 Ibid. p29
45 Wardell Pomeroy, Girls and Sex, Penguin Books, first published 1969, 1986
reprint, p117
46 Ibid. p119
47 Learning to Live with Sex, Ann Burkitt, Family Planning Association, 1980,
pp25-26
48 Ibid. Lovelife, p27
49 Ibid. 4 Boys, Family Planning Association, 2000
50 Is everybody doing it? Your guide to contraception, Family Planning
Association, 2000
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid. Lovelife, p4
53 Say ‘yes’? Say ‘no’? Say ‘maybe’?, Suzie Hayman, Brook 1999, p13
54 Ibid. p16
55 The cool lovers guide to slick condom use, Leaflet, Brook publications
56 Your Passport to Sexual Health, Marie Stopes International, p1
57 Ibid. p6
58 Ibid. Lovelife, p6, p8
59 Haishan Fu et al, Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates from the 1995
National Survey of Family Growth, Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 31, no2,
March/April 1999
60 Ibid. Lovelife, p19
61 Ibid. Sexual matters for young women, p1
62 Trends in sexually transmitted disease in the United Kingdom, PHLS, summary p
iv
63 Ibid. Lovelife, p19
64 Ibid. Lovelife, p21
65 The Pagan Federation website, paganfed.demon.co.uk
66 Hansard. Lords debate, 14 January 1976, c178 |