When Nadine Dorries proposed the motion to teach girls aged 13-16 ‘the benefits of abstinence’ she claimed that young people are ‘taught to have safe sex, but not how to say no’. Is this really the case?
The argument put forward by those who back abstinence-based sex and relationships education is often based on the misconception that SRE in schools is focused purely on teaching young people how to have sex, with no reference whatsoever to delaying or refraining from sexual activity. One member of the new abstinence-heavy SRE Council, Challenge Team UK claims:
‘By giving information about condoms and showing teens how to use them, adults who are the authority figures in teens' lives may be giving them, unintentionally, permission to have sex’.
In fact, good SRE is NOT about encouraging young people to have sex as soon as possible. Good SRE will always acknowledge the importance of having sex only when the time is right for you (and your partner/s). Good SRE will make clear that ‘sex’ isn’t necessarily just about male/female penetration and that there are many other ways (sexual and non-sexual) of showing someone affection and feeling pleasure. Good SRE will note that the legal age of consent for young people is 16, but that the age at which people feel ready for sex, or start to have sexual relationships can be different for everyone. Good SRE will of course stress the importance of only having the kind of sex you want to have at a time which feels right for you. And yes, good SRE will encourage the use of condoms (alongside other contraceptive methods) should this situation arise, as a way to reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancy and STI transmission. Good SRE will cover communication and relationships alongside consent – how to say yes, no, and ‘not now’!
Sex Educators aren’t telling young people about safer sex because they want them all to be having sex as early as possible. But because they live in the real world, where yes, some young people may already be having sex and need to know where they can access accurate information and advice. And because, well, the vast majority of young people they speak to in a school or youth centre will, at some point in their lives have sex. Just as with other aspects of education, we teach young people life skills which may not be relevant to them at this very moment but will almost certainly be relevant for their futures.
Showing posts with label Abstinence only education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abstinence only education. Show all posts
Monday, July 18, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
Who are the new SRE Council?
Last month Care (Christian Action Research and Education) issued a press release to announce the launch of a new SRE council which has received support from Education Secretary Michael Gove. The release states that the council ‘has been formed to promote the best possible sex and relationship education both at home and at school, recognising the particular importance of enhancing the role played by parents in SRE.’ This blog takes a closer look at the groups involved and what their vision of ‘the best possible SRE’ might look like.
Lovewise
‘Lovewise is a charity which seeks to help schools and youth groups by providing presentations on the subjects of marriage, sex and relationships from a Christian perspective’.
Lovewise’s charitable objectives are to ‘advance the Christian faith...particularly (but not exclusively) the Biblical teaching on human sexuality, marriage and the complementary callings of man and woman’. A glance at their sample presentations for schools shows a shocking disregard for facts (for example claims that abortion causes infertility and breast cancer).
Evaluate
Evaluate ‘supports (young people) in delaying sexual experience until a long-term committed exclusive relationship’
Evaluate is an education programme run by Care, in connection with partner organisation Care Confidential (a network of independent pregnancy advice centres). Care’s charitable object is: ‘The advancement and propagation of the Christian gospel and in particular Christian teaching as it bears on or affects national and individual morality and ethics’. Care advocates for ‘an educated Christian view of life from its beginning at conception to its natural end’.
Challenge Team UK
‘The Challenge Team UK presents its message from a common sense and health perspective, without any religious references.’ That message is, ‘Saving sex for marriage is a positive, realistic and healthy lifestyle.’
Although Challenge Team rejects the term ‘abstinence’ for the work they do, they ‘promote(s) healthy sexuality by...suggesting that teens 'save sex for marriage' in order to stay healthy now and enjoy marriage later’. They claim that although ‘all of those involved in the Challenge Team so far have Christian beliefs’and that ‘The Challenge Team Trust Deed has a Christian basis’ none of the materials mention religion.
In line with many of the other organisations in this group Challenge Team take a dim view of current SRE practices: ‘By giving information about condoms and showing teens how to use them, adults who are the authority figures in teens' lives may be giving them, unintentionally, permission to have sex’.
Life
‘The most important and influential part of LIFE's ethos is our opposition to all abortion on principle.’
Life, which has also recently joined the government’s sexual health forum describes itself as non-religious. It advocates for ‘Our young people (to be) given a true sense of their self worth and a full appreciation of the importance of loving, stable and faithful relationships and has spoken out against contraception education and current SRE practices. This article evidences Life’s false claim that the morning after pill is an abortifacient.
Silver Ring Thing
‘There is only one true "Safe Sex" message and that must be the message of abstinence until marriage. Through this programme teens are able to understand that abstinence until marriage is not only God's plan for their lives, but also the best and only way to avoid the harmful physical and emotional effects of premarital sex.’
The UK’s Silver Ring Thing is an import from the U.S which teaches abstinence to young people who are encouraged to wear a silver ring as a symbol of their pledge to abstain from having sex until marriage. The website claims that: ‘the only way to reverse the moral decay of any youth culture is to inspire a change in the conduct and behaviour from those within the culture’ – youth volunteers are used to achieve this aim.
Family Education Trust
‘Sex education is an ideological battlefield on which a war is being waged for the hearts and minds of children. Behind the innocuous-sounding words used by the sex education lobby, there is a definite agenda at work to undermine the role of parents and to tear down traditional moral standards. The need for parents to be alert and vigilant has never been greater’.
The Family Education Trust produce literature campaigning against ‘modern’ methods of SRE arguing for a ‘clear moral framework that shows a proper respect for parents and for marriage.’ Lisa from EFC has blogged about one of their pamphlets aimed at young people here.
Right to Life
‘Right to Life is a political lobby group defending the right to life from conception to natural death’
This campaign group’s charitable aims include:
• Advancing the public’s education with a view to recognising the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death
• Provid(ing) relief...to young girls, in need of assistance and protection who may be under pressure to have an abortion.
Their educational worksheet on abortion can be seen here.
Some of these groups use the term ‘abstinence’ outright, some don’t. Many of them are anti-choice. Some use misinformation and false statistics. Many make statements which ostracise lesbian, gay and bisexual young people, or those who have/are single parents or are from 'non-traditional' families. But what they all share is a commitment to fighting any kind of ‘comprehensive’ SRE programme in which young people are given factual information about their rights and responsibilities and information on how to practice safer sex alongside advice on delaying sex until they are ready. The heavy push these groups make for heterosexual (often assumed to be Christian) marriage being the only valid context for sex is arguably offensive, and at best irrelevant to the lives of many young people in this country.
Lovewise
‘Lovewise is a charity which seeks to help schools and youth groups by providing presentations on the subjects of marriage, sex and relationships from a Christian perspective’.
Lovewise’s charitable objectives are to ‘advance the Christian faith...particularly (but not exclusively) the Biblical teaching on human sexuality, marriage and the complementary callings of man and woman’. A glance at their sample presentations for schools shows a shocking disregard for facts (for example claims that abortion causes infertility and breast cancer).
Evaluate
Evaluate ‘supports (young people) in delaying sexual experience until a long-term committed exclusive relationship’
Evaluate is an education programme run by Care, in connection with partner organisation Care Confidential (a network of independent pregnancy advice centres). Care’s charitable object is: ‘The advancement and propagation of the Christian gospel and in particular Christian teaching as it bears on or affects national and individual morality and ethics’. Care advocates for ‘an educated Christian view of life from its beginning at conception to its natural end’.
Challenge Team UK
‘The Challenge Team UK presents its message from a common sense and health perspective, without any religious references.’ That message is, ‘Saving sex for marriage is a positive, realistic and healthy lifestyle.’
Although Challenge Team rejects the term ‘abstinence’ for the work they do, they ‘promote(s) healthy sexuality by...suggesting that teens 'save sex for marriage' in order to stay healthy now and enjoy marriage later’. They claim that although ‘all of those involved in the Challenge Team so far have Christian beliefs’and that ‘The Challenge Team Trust Deed has a Christian basis’ none of the materials mention religion.
In line with many of the other organisations in this group Challenge Team take a dim view of current SRE practices: ‘By giving information about condoms and showing teens how to use them, adults who are the authority figures in teens' lives may be giving them, unintentionally, permission to have sex’.
Life
‘The most important and influential part of LIFE's ethos is our opposition to all abortion on principle.’
Life, which has also recently joined the government’s sexual health forum describes itself as non-religious. It advocates for ‘Our young people (to be) given a true sense of their self worth and a full appreciation of the importance of loving, stable and faithful relationships and has spoken out against contraception education and current SRE practices. This article evidences Life’s false claim that the morning after pill is an abortifacient.
Silver Ring Thing
‘There is only one true "Safe Sex" message and that must be the message of abstinence until marriage. Through this programme teens are able to understand that abstinence until marriage is not only God's plan for their lives, but also the best and only way to avoid the harmful physical and emotional effects of premarital sex.’
The UK’s Silver Ring Thing is an import from the U.S which teaches abstinence to young people who are encouraged to wear a silver ring as a symbol of their pledge to abstain from having sex until marriage. The website claims that: ‘the only way to reverse the moral decay of any youth culture is to inspire a change in the conduct and behaviour from those within the culture’ – youth volunteers are used to achieve this aim.
Family Education Trust
‘Sex education is an ideological battlefield on which a war is being waged for the hearts and minds of children. Behind the innocuous-sounding words used by the sex education lobby, there is a definite agenda at work to undermine the role of parents and to tear down traditional moral standards. The need for parents to be alert and vigilant has never been greater’.
The Family Education Trust produce literature campaigning against ‘modern’ methods of SRE arguing for a ‘clear moral framework that shows a proper respect for parents and for marriage.’ Lisa from EFC has blogged about one of their pamphlets aimed at young people here.
Right to Life
‘Right to Life is a political lobby group defending the right to life from conception to natural death’
This campaign group’s charitable aims include:
• Advancing the public’s education with a view to recognising the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death
• Provid(ing) relief...to young girls, in need of assistance and protection who may be under pressure to have an abortion.
Their educational worksheet on abortion can be seen here.
Some of these groups use the term ‘abstinence’ outright, some don’t. Many of them are anti-choice. Some use misinformation and false statistics. Many make statements which ostracise lesbian, gay and bisexual young people, or those who have/are single parents or are from 'non-traditional' families. But what they all share is a commitment to fighting any kind of ‘comprehensive’ SRE programme in which young people are given factual information about their rights and responsibilities and information on how to practice safer sex alongside advice on delaying sex until they are ready. The heavy push these groups make for heterosexual (often assumed to be Christian) marriage being the only valid context for sex is arguably offensive, and at best irrelevant to the lives of many young people in this country.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Myth Busting Monday: '7 year olds are putting condoms on bananas'
So, since this meeting is taking place in London tonight to get together some like-minded opponents of Nadine Dorries’ recent plans to introduce abstinence education in schools and ‘independent’ pre-abortion counselling we thought we’d be topical and touch on one of her oft repeated myths: That children in primary schools are being taught how to put on condoms using bananas.
Here’s Dorries on her own blog claiming that:
“Girls as young as seven are taught about intercourse, safe sex, how to apply a condom on a banana, where to get condoms, how to detect an STI and that they don’t need to tell their parents anything.”
And she’s repeated the banana thing in quite a few of her numerous media appearances. Now we know that Dorries' blog is, by her own admission, 70% fiction but this little nugget of fiction is particularly galling to those of us who actually work in sex education. Yes, thankfully there are some primary schools doing great SRE, but for children below 11 this focuses very heavily on the ‘R’ – relationships. By talking to children about appropriate relationships educators introduce awareness of boundaries and what is and isn’t safe.
Anyone who does work in schools/SRE will tell you that when condom demonstrations are done they a) generally take place from about Year 9 in secondary school when SRE starts to cover topics like contraception and STIs and they b) don’t tend to use fruits and vegetables but rather an appropriately but perhaps boringly named ‘condom demonstrator’ (which generally look something like this).
What’s worrying here is why Dorries chooses to roll out this myth again and again. This post on the Children’s Services Blog suggests an underlying rejection of comprehensive SRE altogether:
‘Dorries sounds alarmist. She sounds Puritan. Her objections to banana-condom practice hint at a disregard for lessons on safe sex altogether’.
So let’s file this one in the ‘70% fiction’ pile. Busted.
Here’s Dorries on her own blog claiming that:
“Girls as young as seven are taught about intercourse, safe sex, how to apply a condom on a banana, where to get condoms, how to detect an STI and that they don’t need to tell their parents anything.”
And she’s repeated the banana thing in quite a few of her numerous media appearances. Now we know that Dorries' blog is, by her own admission, 70% fiction but this little nugget of fiction is particularly galling to those of us who actually work in sex education. Yes, thankfully there are some primary schools doing great SRE, but for children below 11 this focuses very heavily on the ‘R’ – relationships. By talking to children about appropriate relationships educators introduce awareness of boundaries and what is and isn’t safe.
Anyone who does work in schools/SRE will tell you that when condom demonstrations are done they a) generally take place from about Year 9 in secondary school when SRE starts to cover topics like contraception and STIs and they b) don’t tend to use fruits and vegetables but rather an appropriately but perhaps boringly named ‘condom demonstrator’ (which generally look something like this).
What’s worrying here is why Dorries chooses to roll out this myth again and again. This post on the Children’s Services Blog suggests an underlying rejection of comprehensive SRE altogether:
‘Dorries sounds alarmist. She sounds Puritan. Her objections to banana-condom practice hint at a disregard for lessons on safe sex altogether’.
So let’s file this one in the ‘70% fiction’ pile. Busted.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Myth Busting Monday Special - so many myths, so little time
An article in The Independent newspaper today reports that Family Education Trust is circulating a pamphlet to all schools today encouraging them to promote the message that ‘In the context of a faithful, lifelong marriage, sexual intimacy is beautiful and enriching, but where a sexual relationship is pursued to express passing feelings and emotions, it is ugly and destructive and will lead to misery and regret.’
For this Myth Busting Special I look at all the myths that are explicitly stated and implicit in the pamphlet and in FET's decision to distribute to all schools.
Sex before marriage is ugly and destructive?
There are millions of people, young and old, having sex outside of, before and after, marriage all over the world. While we know that many people experience unsatisfying sex, coerced and unwanted sex, which is 'ugly and destructive', or transactional sex which may be far from 'beautiful', millions of unmarried people also enjoy the intimacy and affection and the physical sensation of sex for which human minds and bodies are so perfectly made. The human body which predates the institution of marriage by some fair margin – is made for sexual pleasure. For millions of people sexual pleasure has been the only pleasure they could come by easily in a world in which food, shelter, and other forms of basic comfort, let alone recreation, are not guaranteed. Though it pains some people to hear it, many millions of people in the world enjoy sex within a range of different relationship types from long-term and monogamous to perfunctory. For some the excitement of the one night stand outweighs the technical congruence of the long-term partnership. For others it is the safety and familiarity of the long-term relationship that enhances pleasure and enjoyment. In any kind of relationship where both partners are consenting and enthusiastic and use safer sex practices, sex outside of marriage has no demonstrable negative effect on its participants.
Sex within marriage is universally beautiful and enriching
Given the multiplicity of literature, TV programmes and replies from agony aunts on 'how to keep your flagging sex life alive' and 'how to keep your husband interested' it may be safe to assume that marriage, and the monogamy it implies, does not- in and of itself- guarantee you good sex. Married couples may experience all the same problems as unmarried ones when it comes to sex, a difference in desire and libido, different sexual needs and tastes, different energy levels, physical and psychological obstacles to fulfilling sex, infidelity and jealousy. Some of these things may even be exacerbated by lack of sexual experimentation with each other or others before marriage. While marriage may provide a safe and trusting relationship within which to explore each others sexuality, it can also normalise and cement dysfunction and violence. Good communication, equality and trust are the key ingredients for any couple's sex life and these do not come free with the marriage vows.
Regret always relates to sex outside of marriage
Some people regret that they never experimented more before they committed themselves to a monogamous married relationship.
Sex education is corrupt and corrupting unless it aims to prevent people having sex
Of course we all believe in educating people to have the tools to resist unwanted or unsatisfactory sex. Young people need to know how to make choices they'll be happy with about their sexual behaviour and partners, to better understand how to give and recognise consent, and to address power imbalances that lead to violence and bullying - this is why we advocate for comprehensive sex and relationships education, but SRE isn't just about risk avoidance, it also includes how to give and receive pleasure and feel safe. If it's going to engage young people it's got to be about increasing the proportion of sex which is wanted, safe and enjoyed, not reducing the amount of sex young people have per se.
Marriage is the best relationship within which to live and bring up children (and it's ok to tell children so)
Observing sex education lessons in a girls school in inner city Islington carried out by a group with a strong abstinence agenda, my colleague was upset that the speaker was emphasising again and again the disadvantages of being brought up by unmarried or single parents. She was pretty sure that the majority of pupils in that particular school are not brought up by two still-married parents, so how helpful, or ethical was their message? For many children these kinds of messages don't reflect their reality. Proponents of the 'marriage-only' model might as well call these children a bunch of 'bastards', because that is the logical end-point of their thesis - that all sex out of wedlock ends in misery and despair. I thought the repugnant concept of 'illegitimacy' was dead and buried, but I feel it lurking barely beneath the surface of Family Education Trust's ideas.
We also have to consider those young people who know that they are gay or are already questioning their sexuality. How do they hear these messages and what impact does it have on their sense of how valuable they are and how valued their lives and lifestyles will be as they become adults. It is discriminatory and damaging to teach children that there is only one 'right way' to live your life - and particularly vile when those most vigorously promoting marriage as the only way are also the most outspoken against gay marriage.
Most importantly, I have never seen any convincing evidence that marriage is all its cracked up to be. The studies I've seen heralding marriage as the best formula for a happy family seem to ignore confounding factors and rarely compare like with like by looking at long term committed relationships alongside marriage (I'm willing to be corrected by the army of academics out there who can tell me I'm wrong here).
Telling young people not to have sex is a good way to stop young people having sex
It's not. The evidence is everywhere and this blog post is too long already to exercise these arguments again.
Just telling young people not to have sex, and nothing else is morally acceptable
It's not. On top of any arguments about the efficacy of sex education young people have a right to know about things that effect their bodies and lives so it's not ok to ignore their rights by lying to them or withholding accurate information. In fact to do so would be morally corrupt.
Lisa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)