The last enthusiasm for primary sex eduction prompted me to ask if we were really going to tell infant children about someone putting ‘their willy up someone’s bottom‘? Shocking and outrageous though this is, it seems it is exactly the course on which the sex education industry is bent.
The devil is, as always, in the detail and the Christian Institute in its pamphlet Too much too young is spelling out the detail of the sort of material that has been prepared for our children. Here is how our 7-year -olds will learn. It’s the glossary that points the way, determined that children should be able to use just the right words.
A penis is easy to explain. But we need them to know exactly what the anus is:
The hole at the end of the back passage. When you go to the toilet, faeces come out of that hole.
Well, at least that’s clear and, I suppose, educational. Let’s carry on.
Sexual intercourse where a man puts his penis into another person’s anus.
So there we are. Alongside are all the things that most of us gradually got to know rather later – the clitoris ‘producing feelings of sexual excitement’, oral sex ‘lick, kiss or suck a partner’s genitals’, masturbation, erection, orgasm, incest, orgasm, prostitute not least homophobia.
The teacher, it is suggested, might make up a card game. The children could then, in small groups, match up the words with their definition to show that they all know exactly what definitions fit what words.
This is quite outrageous. Whatever the motives, it is a deliberate action that will accelerate the sexualisation of a new generation in what one can reasonably describe as an already oversexualised world. Education is designed to encourage children to think about things and experiment. Why should we think differently of sex education? More of it causes children to start sexual behaviour earlier. They may be already exposed to sexual ideas from the internet, but the answer to that is to give them less access to the internet, not more pornography in school.
Thank goodness that most of the teachers who are involved are straightforward married women who have as much care for their charges as for their own children. They will deal briskly with the content, for they will be required to do so, but they will not linger. For those whose interest in children is unhealthy, what more could they want? Such a sex education is no less than state-sanctioned grooming.
Ofsted inspectors are nothing more than career politicians. Their horizons are constrained by what their bosses want. If the course is there, they will tick the box. But woe-betide a Christian school in which a single child doesn’t know what lesbians are or do.
Why are we doing it? Maria Miller, who chairs the House of Commons’ Women and Equalities Committee, thinks ‘Sex and relationship education must be made mandatory in schools to help tackle the culture behind online abuse.’ This is a classic failure to understand how education works. As soon as someone says that one topic should be part of the school curriculum, the well organised lobbyists join the bandwagon. With sex education those naive left wing voices, of the ilk that failed to see the danger of the Paedophile Information Exchange petitioning for children to be allowed to express themselves sexually, see only the marvellous benefits that more sex education will result in rather than the real dangers.
Expanding sex education in the primary school will not be all right. It will be damaging and corrupting. If you haven’t contacted your MP about it, I urge you to do so now.