Christianity, The Government, and Sex Education

In today’s Independent there is an article about the introduction of sex education for children “as young as 5″. Apparently between the ages of 5-7 (or “Key Stage 1″ as the government has classified that segment of childhood) children are to be taught about the biological differences between boys and girls, and also about how animals reproduce. Sex education about human beings will come at age 11 (or the end of “Key Stage 2″ if you speak Ofsted-ease). Aside from wondering if it is not either naive or dishonest to publicly operate on the assumption that between Key Stages 1 and 2 children will not be able to work out from what they have learned about animals (especially after considering their own bits and bobs) that human beings work the same as cows and pigs, I’m initially in favour of increasing levels of sex education - but with one highly important caveat.

Of course, this issue is red-flag-to-bull for the usual suspects. For example, Stephen Green - national director of Christian Voice - stated that teaching young children about sex was “a wickedness” and that the government wishes to see “a whole generation fornicating” [Source: The Independent, 24/10/08]. Clearly, Mr Green thinks this is a bad thing - yet I find myself in vehement opposition to the likes of Mr Green. For the idea that it is “wicked” to know about sex, and by implication, about the biological facts of sex - the bits and bobs human beings have - is extremely unhealthy, and in a certain respect downright destructive. This is because the attitude that we should not discuss the sexual act or our sexual organs leads straightforwardly to the promotion of feelings of shame - and in this case shame is an undesirable and unhealthy emotion. Ignoring the biology of our bodies and of the sexual act leads to many kinds of shame: shame at one’s own (God-given?) body, shame at the urges one will later develop or has developed, shame even at the very thought of that most natural of acts, reproduction. It seems to me a terrible thing to raise generation of children who will be - no, let’s be honest, given the hopelessly inadequate levels of sex education currently in existence, are  - ashamed of their bodies and urges, because those bodies and urges are shrouded in ignorance, whispers, tabooand embarrasment. Furthermore, shame leads typically to other unhealthy emotions, namely guilt and self-loathing. Surely these are emotions that we should not be building into the psyches of children, and especially not regarding something as important and central to all our lives as sex. (And this applies equally also to those not getting any: the next time you see an advertisement, there’s a fair chance the subtext will be sex and how to get more of it).

Yet having said that, I don’t wholly back the new government pronouncements either. For what appears to be on offer is effectively an extension of an approach which is not only inadequate but also deficient in a respect which is of the utmost importance. That is, the sex education system at present serves to teach children solely about the mechanics of sex. If children are lucky they might get detailed anatomy lessons and may even practice putting condoms on cucumbers. For those who are less lucky and attend faith schools (as I did), they may simply receive a one-off biology lesson at age 11, punctuated by embarrassed giggles and silences - and then nothing more (ever).

This approach is not good enough, because there is more to sex than simply mechanics. The new proposals simply advocate the teaching of mechanics at an earlier age. Yet where is the emphasis on the importance of love or trustin a sexual relationship? Upon the explanations of how people can be sexually vulnerable, of how it is normal to feel possessive of sexual partners?Of why it is important for both girls and boys to respect their bodies by seeing sex as part of a wider array of human emotions and interactions? Of explaining that sex is a deeply psychological act which can affect one’s well-being over and above the contraction of various unpleasant venereal diseases, not to mention the risk of un-planned pregnancy.

Our society is one which remains paradoxically hung-up about sex in many ways: infinite products are sold on the back of (sometimes not very subtle) appeals to sex and sexuality, yet many parents struggle to discuss the act which created their children with those very same offspring (and even fewer - I would guess - are able to discuss the emotional aspects even if they can discuss the mechanics). Sex is not acceptable conversation in polite company - and yet we almost all have or aim to have it regularly. I believe this strangely paradoxical situation contributes to the feelings of shame, guilt, and self-loathing which are deeply harmful to people’s well-being, and which we ought not to be instilling in our children.

Which all leads me to an irony-laden conclusion. Mr Green believes he is standing up for the Christian tradition when he denounces the government’s plans. Yet it seems to me that, if anything, the government is continuing the Christian tradition. It is fairly undeniable that Christianity has vigorously fostered and promoted the notions of guilt, self-loathing and shame - and done so especially in relation to sex and sexuality. By teaching children only about mechanics, the most fundamental aspects of sexuality and the sexual act - and correspondingly an understanding of all the good and bad consequences that go along with the emotions of sex - will be continue to be left out. But if those fundamental aspects are left out - if we don’t teach our children that there is more to sex than sticking bits into each other (something I don’t think I really learned until I was 21, despite the best efforts of a feminist-leaning and sometimes embarrassingly frank mother) - then how will we leave behind the shame, the guilt, the self-loathing? In that respect, the government does not seem to be offering a radical break with the Christian tradition at all, but merely a re-packaging of it. Mr Green need not be so concerned.