I love the dress that Sheffield MP Miriam Cates chose for her Sex Education reform speech. It was a bold choice, deliberately contrasting the traditionally virginal, flower-girl look with the mature, bold language of sex education. Wow. Now. Let’s move on.
The message of the speech, was that sex education in schools is currently addressed in all sorts of inappropriate, inconsistent ways. I can’t argue with that. My daughter told me that they weren’t allowed to name sexual intercourse in their Year six PHSE discussions. This is disturbing; it teaches children to be ashamed to talk about sex. Luckily my daughter can already talk the talk without flinching. Well, almost. She declined my suggestion to ask the teacher if she could user the word ‘fucking’ instead.
So I strongly agree with Cates’ assertion that some kind of compulsory reform of fucking-education is appropriate. The rest of her speech, I’m afraid, was a washout.
Miriam Cates was very clear that the definition of sex was not, as offered by one sex ed provider, ‘anything that makes you horny or aroused.’ I agree. Strangely, however, what upset Cates was the “lack of a direct link between” that definition and pregnancy.
Which is odd. A lot of sexual acts don’t even have pregnancy as a risk. If contraception was taught well in schools, my children would have worked out before I had to explain it that most people having sex don’t do it because they’re trying to get pregnant.
But here is the shocking bit. The MP gave some examples of what she called ‘the plethora of ‘damaging’ materials children are exposed to in ‘bad’ sex education lessons.’ Which is odd because I thought lots of them were pretty reasonable. I know. Here goes:
“DAMAGING” CASE ONE Children in one school were apparently told that they fell into one of two groups: ‘menstruators’ or ‘non menstruators.’ Cates suggests that if a girl didn’t start her periods, she might then get confused and assume that she is actually just a natural non-menstruator (cue pause for horrified shock reaction)…..
Luckily however, we don’t live in Victorian times. After discussing the terms ‘menstruators’ or ‘non menstruators,’ the classes could probably explore the topic. They might talk about sex assigned at birth and how it differs from gender, or the limited time-frame for menstruation, or the fact that some women don’t ever menstruate – or only periodically menstruate – and that some men do. I do hope that my kids are going to discuss the real-life implications of the term ‘menstruators’ at some point. It’s important, so they will do so with me, if not in school.
“DAMAGING” CASE TWO was a lesson where teenagers were given prompt cards and asked to suggest whether certain sex acts were good or bad. “How are children supposed to know which acts come with health risks, risks of pregnancy or STDs?” Miriam Cates asks, as if that made them ‘bad sex acts’, instead of potentially risky ones. Actually, I thought that this was probably the point of the discussion. The only BAD sex act is rape. A discussion that surely does belong in the classroom?
“DAMAGING” CASE THREE Children were apparently told that love has no age (a slogan used in a school resource). Cates says that this undermines their understanding of the legal age of consent. But once again, without context this means absolutely nothing. Love does have no age and is not always sexual; it is sex and not love that needs an age of consent. Without seeing the material in question, no-one listening to the speech could reasonably comment on the example. I’m beginning to think that Cates keeps bringing up these context-free half-examples to meet her own ends.
“DAMAGING” CASE FOUR Sex education provider BISH informs children that most people have a penis and testes or a clitoris and vagina; however, also that many people are in the middle of a spectrum with how their bodies are configured. As a former biology teacher, Cates apparently “doesn’t know where to start” with that one. Luckily, I do. How about, ‘What they should have said is, most people have a penis and testes or a clitoris and vagina, but that doesn’t apply to everybody. Gender is a different concept and more complicated and many people are in the middle of a spectrum as to how their gender is aligned.’ Well now; I might not have taught kids biology, but that wasn’t too complicated, was it?
“DAMAGING” CASE FIVE: Children are apparently being told that the law is not there to punish young people for having consensual sex. Cates suggests that this is unreasonable and undermines the law. Well – perhaps it is an inappropriate law. What does she recommend instead? Telling kids that sex is so illegal that if they’re found out for having it aged fifteen with anther fifteen-year-old, they ought to get sent to a young offenders place? I’m not going to pretend to know the answer here but at the very least, maybe we should admit that the issue of consensual sex between fifteen year olds is not black and white.
“DAMAGING” CASE SIX: Cates disapproves of the introduction of graphic material in PSHE lessons, saying that it reinforces the porn culture and damages children in a devastating way . Oh, really? So what were you proposing we do regarding making them aware of the porn culture? Pretend it doesn’t exist? Let kids find it for the first time online, alone or with friends, when there isn’t a grown-up there to discuss it or put it into context? She needs to think this one though.
“DAMAGING” CASE SEVEN There is a dice game encouraging kids to discuss explicit acts based on the role of a dice. The faces of the dice read : anus, vulva, testicles, penis, mouth, objects. Children are encouraged to think about acts that may be performed between two body parts, as relating to what was rolled on the dice. Oh! But this is refreshing. Admittedly a dice game might be a little bit reminiscent of naughty party-games and not therefore the best way to go about this in class -but frankly, the possibility that sex isn’t limited to penis-in-vagina action really does need to be explored.
I suspect that Cates would say that this isn’t age appropriate, but that raises a few questions in itself. If kids aren’t old enough to learn these things in a safe school environment, then how and when are they going to learn it?
DAMAGING CASE EIGHT Sex education in some schools included things like BDSM, rough sex, spanking, kinks……. again, isn’t this positive? Would you rather your kid learned this stuff through controlled discussion in a classroom, or from watching porn?
Expecting a triumph of educational improvement, I came away from watching this speech a little frustrated. Sex education in schools needs more grown-up discussion than this. The only place that Cates and I seem to agree is that it is our responsibility to inform factually, truthfully and in age appropriate ways so they can make an informed choice. You’d think that would be enough, but it isn’t.
My Body, My Own 