Education: demoralising sexual conduct
A talk to the Summer School of
Theology at Metropolitan Tabernacle 2004, Dr ES Williams
now widely accepted that there is a crisis in the sexual health of teenagers in
the UK. It is often quoted that we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies
in Western Europe. According to Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, we cannot afford
to continue to ignore this shameful record. Every year some 90 thousand
teenagers in England become pregnant, the vast majority of whom are unmarried.
Around 8,000 are girls aged 15 or younger.
are almost weekly headlines illustrating the shocking nature of the crisis. The
recent furore over a 14-year-old schoolgirl who was given an abortion, behind
her mother’s back, on the advice of a sexual health advisor from the local NHS
trust, has astounded, even shocked the nation. A parliamentary select committee
investigating the issue has identified what it called an unprecedented crisis in
sexual health. The latest statistics show that all the common STDs have more
than doubled in the last decade. And the greatest rises have occurred among
aim is to show you why I believe that the current crisis is, in large part, due
to the ill conceived national policy on sex education. Two essential documents
outline government policy.
The first is the Teenage Pregnancy
report (1999), prepared by the Government’s Social Exclusion Unit. It argues
that the high teenage pregnancy rate is due to ignorance. We are told that
‘young people lack accurate knowledge about contraception, sexually transmitted
diseases, what to expect in relationships…’ The report concludes that there has
been a drift into the serious error of moralising.[i]
‘Whether the Government likes it or not, young people decide what they’re going
to do about sex and contraception. Keeping them in the dark or preaching at
them makes it less likely they’ll make the right decision.’[ii]
In the Government view’s any attempt to introduce a moral dimension into the
discussion on sexual behaviour and contraception is not only unhelpful, but also
second document is Sex and Relationship Guidance (2000), issued to
all schools and health authorities. It asserts that teaching schoolchildren
about contraception is at the heart of the Government’s strategy to reduce
teenage pregnancy. It follows that ‘staff in secondary schools should be able
to give young people full information about different types of
contraception, including emergency contraception…’
According to the guidance, ‘young people need to know not just what safer sex
is, and why it is important, but also how to negotiate it with a partner’.
The guidance insists that it is essential for schools to ‘help children and
young people develop confidence in talking, listening and thinking about sex and
Government’s target is to reduce teenage pregnancies by 50 per cent by the year
2010. The main weapons in are sex education, with its ‘safer sex’ message,
emergency contraception and early abortion.
Contraceptives for children
Labour Government’s policy to increase the use of contraception among children
must be seen in the context of current patterns of use. In the mid-1970s, as
sex education was taking off, around 8 thousand under-16s were recruited into
using contraception per year; by 2003 the figure had risen to 85 thousand—a
tenfold increase in 25 years. The shocking truth is that over the last three
decades successive British Governments have succeeded in developing a
contraceptive culture among children.
Emergency contraception became available in
the 1980s. By the mid-1990s almost 800 thousand prescriptions per year were
being issued. In 2002 family planning clinics issued nearly 27 thousand
prescriptions to girls under 16, and 77 thousand to young women aged 16 to 19.[iii]
The number obtaining prescriptions from GPs is not known. Yet the Government
now has a major campaign to increase its use among teenagers—a scheme has
recently piloted the provision of emergency contraception in supermarkets. A
DOH spokeswoman said: ‘We strongly support the involvement of Sainsbury’s,
working with the local NHS, to improve young women’s access to free emergency
The background to sex education
how have we arrived at the present situation where tens of thousands of under
age children are using contraception? For the past thousand years biblical
morality has been the foundation for sexual conduct in this country. Biblical
virtues were widely accepted as the only sure guide to sexual behaviour. How is
it possible that Great Britain, once a great Christian nation, has fallen so low
that the state is now issuing contraception to children in supermarkets?
the early 1970s, after the introduction of the abortion act in 1968, there was
wide spread concern about the high number of abortions among young people.
Although there were already over a thousand FPA contraceptive clinics around the
country, a Government review of family planning concluded that a substantial
expansion was needed to reduce the number of unwanted teenage pregnancies. The
British Medical Journal argued that a policy of free contraception would help
cut the number of unintended pregnancies.
In 1973 it was argued in Parliament that an
efficient and comprehensive family planning service, which included providing
contraception to girls under 16, would reduce abortion figures.[iv]
And so in 1974, by an Act of Parliament, the British Government became
responsible for supplying contraceptives to children. It was now Government
policy for the state to provide contraceptives to children under the age of
sexual consent. This Act of Parliament represented a massive change in
social policy and was a landmark decision in favour of the sexual revolution.
the most disturbing aspect of the Act was that it allowed doctors to prescribe
contraceptives to children without the knowledge or consent of their parents—and
hardly anybody outside the family planning lobby was aware of this fact. Few
people realised that doctors now had the right to prescribe contraceptives for
children and keep the fact secret from their parents.
contraceptives have been freely available to under age children on the National
Health Service (NHS) since 1974, and a number of ideologically motivated
organisations, such as the Family Planning Association (FPA), the Health
Education Authority (HEA) and the Brook Advisory Centres (Brook), have spent
millions of pounds of public money on promoting contraception among young
people. How ironic that after three decades of free contraception for children,
provided free by the state, the UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies
in Western Europe! How ironic that after three decades of free contraception
for children, there is now an epidemic of STDs among young people. Any
reasonable person would conclude that the policy has failed—that the promotion
of contraceptives is not the answer to teenage pregnancies. Why then does our
Government persist with the policy of promoting contraceptives among children, a
policy that is clearly not meeting its stated objectives?
The sexual revolution
answer this question we need to explore the link between sex education and the
sexual revolution. In my book, Lesson in Depravity, I conclude ‘we can
only understand the motivation behind sex education if we grasp the essential
point that sex education has evolved out of the ideas of the sexual
revolution’. Many of the revolutionaries realised that sex education could be a
powerful vehicle for promoting their ideas among children.
Frederick Nietzsche was one of the early sexual revolutionaries. He boasted
that he was the original immoralist. He totally rejected biblical morality.
His proclamation that God was dead led to the notion that there is no objective
truth, and, therefore, no absolute moral standards. His thinking introduced the
ideas that would develop into the ideology of postmodernism, in which each
person is free to decide his own truth and his own morality. What I want, if it
feels good, is right for me at that moment. This philosophy opened the gateway
for the sexual revolution. Having removed the absolute moral laws of the Bible,
people were free to decide their own values, to set their own standards. The
sexual revolutionaries, following Nietzsche’s atheistic philosophy, encouraged
the idea that people, and even children, are free to develop their own set of
sexual values, without regard to an absolute moral standard.
Sigmund Freud, the founder of the psychoanalytic movement, constructed a view of
human sexual behaviour that was devoid of a moral dimension. In all his vast
writings there is not the slightest suggestion that any sexual act is wrong or
immoral. He explained life in terms of a sexual impulse that is bisexual in
direction. In his mind, children, from the earliest age, have hidden sexual
desires, which manifest themselves in the Oedipus complex. After Freud had
pronounced his theories, people were encouraged to think about sex as an innate
instinctive force, and to do so without any moral constraints. It is now
orthodoxy to think of children as sexual beings.
According to Roger Scruton, Freud’s
‘assumptions underlie the repulsive lessons in sex education that the national
curriculum is now forcing on children—lessons designed to facilitate sexual
activity long before personal love is possible…’[v]
Freud opened the gateway to the sexual revolution even wider.
Stopes’s contribution to the sexual revolution was to cultivate the myth of
sexual ignorance and to legitimise the use of sexually explicit language. Her
Married Love was the first publication in England to use explicit sexual
language. The effect of her writing was to undermine modesty in the minds of
those who read her books. Her other contribution to the sexual revolution was
to found the Family Planning Association, the organisation that is in the
forefront of the sex education movement in the UK.
author of The Sexual Revolution, Wilhelm Reich, a disciple of Freud, was
a dedicated opponent of Christian standards of sexual conduct. He outlined the
objectives of the revolution in stark terms. He asserted that at the heart of a
sexually repressed society is the institution of marriage and what he referred
to as the authoritarian family. He realised that it was the institution of
marriage that acted as the brake on sexual liberation, for it helped to maintain
chastity and marital fidelity. The family, which is the main vehicle for giving
children a traditional moral foundation, perpetuates sexual repression. So for
the revolution to succeed marriage and the traditional family must be
destroyed—only then can there be true sexual liberation.
saw that education was important for inculcating into children the ideals of
sexual freedom. He propagated the notion that sexual explicitness is a key
weapon for undermining conventional morality. Children who have received
explicit sex education would no longer accept traditional morality.
Alfred Kinsey’s research into human sexual
behaviour was an attempt to established a new morality.[vi]
To him sex is no more than a biological instinct. His approach is strictly
amoral—nothing is right or wrong, no form of sexual behaviour is abnormal or
harmful and there is no such thing as sexual perversion, for every type of
sexual activity, even bestiality, is natural.
ideology of sex education
the last few decades the UK has been flooded with sex education resource
materials, which include leaflets, pamphlets, booklets, videos, teachers manuals
etc. Over 100 million items of literature promoting the messages of sex
education have been distributed in the last 20 years. It is important to
understand that the main organisation involved in sex education is the NHS.
Health authorities, with the assistance of the FPA, and Brook and other
organisations involved in the sex education industry, have been actively engaged
in distributing this literature, some of which is used in sex education lessons
Some of these materials are deeply
offensive. In 1994 there was a furore when the Health Education Authority, a
Government quango, published its sex education booklet, Your Pocket Guide to
Sex, which showed an angel astride a condom on the cover. The booklet,
written by the agony aunt for Just 17, contained information on the use
of vibrators, oral sex and masturbation. In parliament Lord Stallard said he
believed that the booklet promoted promiscuity and was insulting to women. The
Earl of Lauderdale called it ‘a glossy but degrading incitement to anti-family
The morality of desire – only have
sex because you want to
me explain the message of sex education. I’ve selected a few of the pamphlets
and leaflets produced by the Health Education Authority, Brook and the FPA, all
of which receive substantial funds from the Government.
The pamphlet Sexual health matters for
young women (HEA) explains to a young woman 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’.[viii]
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. 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.
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. 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’.[ix]
Notice the casual, amoral approach to promiscuous sex. 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 about their sexual
conduct, free no doubt from the influence of their parents or the teaching of
the Church. 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.
guidance provided to our children by sex education is based on the morality of
desire. The guiding principle is what a child wants. As there is no
clear distinction between right and wrong in matters of sexual conduct, each
child is free to develop his or her own moral framework. It is extraordinary
that a country like England, which for centuries past has accepted the objective
standard of biblical morality, should now teach children to develop their own
set of values.
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.’
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.’ Teenagers are advised that ‘if
you’re likely to be in a situation where you may have sex make sure you’ve got
condoms with you.’ 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.
education openly promotes the Kinsey’s view of sexuality. 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.[xi]
Sex education ideology makes no moral distinction between heterosexual and
homosexual sex—both are equally acceptable, it’s simply a matter of choice.
advice is consistent with the ideology propagated by Alfred Kinsey, namely, that
human sexuality is a continuum with bisexuality being the norm.
Sex words and sexual images
Encouraging children to talk openly and freely about sex is an important aim of
sex education. The Department of Health has commissioned a national campaign to
help parents talk to their sons and daughters about sex. According to the sex
educators, even young children need a sexual vocabulary; the larger the
vocabulary the more they will feel able to talk about sex.
An FPA training manual, The weird and
wonderful world of Billy Ballgreedy, acknowledges that ‘talking about issues
relating to sex is often unfamiliar and uncomfortable for young people,
invariably causing much embarrassment and laughter.’ But the FPA has a
technique for overcoming this embarrassment – the sex words brainstorm. The sex
educator allocates children into a number of small groups with a sheet of flip
chart paper divided into four sections. They are asked to write a ‘sex’ in each
section, and then to think of as many alternative ‘sex’ words as possible.
Nothing is off limits, for sex education does not recognise the concept of foul
language. The groups are asked to call out all their words, and the group with
the highest number is declared the winner.[xiv]
In another word game children are given a jumbled set of display cards with half
a sex word on each. They are set the task of matching the cards to complete the
sex words. The purpose of the sex word game is to empower both adults and
children to be able to use sex language without any sense of embarrassment.
Nothing is taboo, and nothing is too embarrassing. The purpose of these games
is to desensitise children against sexual embarrassment; to overcome their sense
of shame and extinguish their natural inhibitions. Eventually, when they are
fully desensitised, they will be able to talk freely and openly about sex.
Exposing the genitalia
Another dimension of sex education is to teach children about the genitalia in a
way that is blatant and explicit. Many sex education films, books and pamphlets
provide children with graphic visual images of sex organs, and it is now widely
accepted that displaying the genitalia is simply a part of a child’s education.
The Brook booklet A look at safe sex, contained detailed, explicit,
close-up, drawings of the sexual organs, including an explicit, realistic
drawing of a condom being fitted to an erect penis. The FPA booklets 4 Boys
and 4 Girls provide graphic drawings of large groups of naked men and
women. The condom demonstrator is an essential tool of the sex educator.
Children are taught to unroll condoms on a realistic model of an erect penis.
And all this must be done with no giggling, no sense of shame, for children are
only truly liberated when all things sexual are in the open. Sex must be
uncovered and exposed; nothing is to be hidden, nothing is private, nothing is
sacred – all is exposed in the name of sex education. So the sex educators go
about their work, leaving behind children who have images of the sex organs
imprinted in their impressionable minds.
the last 40 years, since the advent of sex education, there has been a radical
change in what society accepts as sexual decency. We have moved from a society
that believed in modesty to a society that glorifies sexual explicitness.
promotion of sexually explicit words and images among mixed groups of children
undermines modesty in girls and chivalry in boys. Teaching girls to use sexual
words, to view sexual images, and to unroll condoms onto a dildo, is to demean
their modesty and dishonours them in front of other children. The assumption
that girls need to know about contraception creates the impression in the
fertile imagination of the young boys that they cannot wait to become sexually
active. The girls are placed in a situation where they appear to be interested
in sex, and in the minds of the boys they become sex objects. What excuse can
any girl have for not agreeing to sex with her boyfriend when she is supposed to
know all about ‘safe sex’? And what girl who has practised unrolling condoms
can pretend to be modest? These girls are trapped—they are being prepared for a
life of promiscuous sex.
are being introduced to ideas and images that are way beyond their
understanding. The explicit images expose them to unnatural sexual thoughts
that inflame sexual lust. Any thought of chivalry and respect towards the girls
has been blown away. Suddenly the idea that they can have sex with a schoolgirl
becomes a distinct possibility. In the minds of the boys the girls have become
potential sex objects, for they know about sex and how to prevent pregnancy.
The gateway to promiscuity is opened wide. It is not difficult to see that
sexual explicitness encourages sexual temptation. When modesty is destroyed,
women lose their sexual innocence and become sexually available, the objects of
pleasure, to be used and discarded. Casual sex becomes the norm and there are
no restraints. Sex is no longer an intensely private matter between husband and
wife, but a trivialised game, a plaything, something to give pleasure to lustful
males. When young men lose their God-given chivalry they lose respect for women
and become sexual predators who feel entitled to satisfy their lusts on the
objects of their sexual desires.
education and marriage
While sex education is profoundly
anti-marriage in its underlying ideology, its usual technique is simply to
ignore marriage. In other words, children are taught about sex without any
reference to marriage. Children are led to believe that sex outside of marriage
is the expected norm. Children are taught that there is no distinction between
marriage and other stable relationship. This point is illustrated in an article
written by a teacher, Susan Elkin, who is brave enough to report what is
actually happening in some school classrooms. She explains how the head of
science asked her to teach a sex education module to a class of 14 and
15-year-olds. She was provided with a pile of worksheets and a box of
contraceptive samples, and given the task of teaching the children the mechanics
of contraception, with the clear instruction, ‘We don’t, as a matter of policy,
mention marriage or use the terms “husband” or “wife”.’[xv]
education and the family
The above analysis leaves no doubt that the
message of sex education is profoundly hostile to marriage and the traditional
family. Sex education has become a major weapon in an ideological war against
the family; its aim is to divest the parents of their moral authority. Sex
education is slowly but surely replacing the moral authority of the family with
that of the State, acting through the NHS and the state education system.[xvi]
What is deeply disturbing is that the UK Government is content to use the
national curriculum as an ideological weapon to indoctrinate children against
the biblical teaching of marriage and the traditional family, a teaching that
has been accepted by the vast majority of the population for centuries.
there is no doubt that sex education has failed dismally in its stated aim of
reducing teenage pregnancies, STDs and abortions. This is because contraception
use among the young has an exceptionally high failure rate. The more that young
people are recruited into using contraception, the more sexually activity among
young people, the higher the rate of pregnancy. This is why there is such an
emphasis on emergency contraception. And the protection provided against most
STDs is marginal. For many of the STDs, such as genital herpes, gonorrhoea in
women, chlamydia, HPV there is no evidence that the condom provides protection.
The case against sex education
story of sex education is a story that must strike fear into the hearts of most
parents. From the evidence that we have uncovered it is clear that sex
education is being used as a medium for communicating the amoral ideology of the
sexual revolution. The sceptre of Frederick Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Marie
Stopes and Alfred Kinsey lurks behind the sex education that is being foisted
onto our children. And behind the revolutionaries lurks the great deceiver, the
father of lies, the prince of darkness, the one who hates children with a
demonic diabolic malice that is beyond human comprehension. We have uncovered
one of the devil’s schemes. Perverted, depraved ideas are now being taught by a
massive, Government funded, indoctrination campaign. Slowly but surely these
revolutionary ideas are taking root among children. Slowly but surely the
revolution against biblical standards is producing its inevitable fruit. As a
consequence it is now commonplace for children to believe that they can do
whatever appears to be right in their own eyes—that they can even set their own
standards of sexual behaviour. Many are being persuaded that they are entitled
to make an informed decision to have sex when they want to, when they feel
ready, provided they practice ‘safer sex’. Many young lives are being shattered
by the dreadful consequences associated with sexual immorality.
is a better way; there is a message of hope in this dark world. As the light of
the world, it is the Church alone that can oppose the evil of sex education. It
is the Church alone that has the message that society so desperately needs. We
must take every opportunity to teach the biblical virtues of modesty, chivalry,
chastity and fidelity. These virtues must be preached from pulpits across the
land and parents must teach them at home. And this is the message: ‘It is God’s
will that you should be holy; that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each
of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and
honourable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and
that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him.
The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and
warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.
Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who
gives you his Holy Spirit’ (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8).
Return to top of page
Teenage pregnancy, HMSO, London, June 1999, p7
Contraceptive Services, England:2002-0, bulletin 2002/15, Department
of Health, ed. Lesz Lancucki, September 2003
Times, News Review, Dr Fraud, 8 April 2001, Roger Scruton
[vi] Ibid. Judith
Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p217
Lords debate, 9 March 1994, cc1423-1426
matters for young women, Health Education Authority, inside front
[ix] 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
- sexual health for young people, Health Education Authority, p2
[xii] 4 Boys,
Family Planning Association, 2000
everybody doing it? Family Planning Association, 2000
[xiv] FPA, The
weird and wonderful world of Billy Ballgreedy support manual,
Telegraph, 12 January 1994, Education: In my view – the moral side
of sex, Susan Elkin
Reiff, The triumph of the therapeutic: uses of faith after Freud,
Harper & Row, 1966, cited from ‘The Sex Education Fraud’ by Chuch Morse,